Ancient Light Bulb

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by newkids123
When you think of widespread technology can it be possible that the people itself part of that government during that era was using cult methods to eliminate spread of information and used it was disguise for "magic" purposes.


That's an interesting idea.




posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
If you want to see cutting edge optics, go to a Las Vegas magic show. Magicians have always been at the forefront of Technology, since time began. Our ancient ancestors had steam operated doors that would open and close on cue, they had automatons that would act out on stage, etc. It was closely guarded technology that gave the inventor and publicist great wealth and power. They were magicians to the public, inventors in reality.
There are varying accounts of inventions in History; glass that could be repaired when broken, (acrylic), batteries, mirrors that could set ships afire, etc. We are descendants of some pretty smart people.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Interesting topic,
I thought i would add something i have heard of.
I have heard from a friend that Babylon actually devoloped some form of a battery!!!! They call it the technology of the Gods! This light bulb would also apply. Gods meaning, most likely of course ancient astronauts, or extraterrestrials viewed as Gods by us peuny humans in the begginnings of time.
Dani



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
You cant just judge something from a single picture

take our penny

if we knew little about US history, (as many of you know little of Egyption history, no offence but think about how much you really know), then we might jump to the conclusion that the man pictured on the penny is "God"
mainly because it says "In god we trust" about him.
We may also think that the building on the back is where "God" lives, because thats logical.

you see where i'm going, no?



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007
You cant just judge something from a single picture

take our penny

if we knew little about US history, (as many of you know little of Egyption history, no offence but think about how much you really know), then we might jump to the conclusion that the man pictured on the penny is "God"
mainly because it says "In god we trust" about him.
We may also think that the building on the back is where "God" lives, because thats logical.

you see where i'm going, no?


Interesting point.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I heard of the same too but it had a different twist on it. Back when King Tut was coming into his power, the local Electrical Workers Union decided to leave something for postarity and a lightbulb was all they had to leave for those in the future. Then during the Nixon rule, "Deepthroat" made it known and the rest is history!



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I just wanted to add that maybe the Egyptians or any other ancient civilization would not have pursued industry and/or technology as feverishly as "modern" society has, even if it fell in their laps. Looking at Stonehenge, the Giza pyramids, Easter island, the Parthenon, the Temple of Bacchus in Baalbek, Lebanon, we see ancient civilizations accomplishing engineering feats which rival those of our own engineers today.

Just because this society shares a somewhat common goal in advancing itself through technology, it doesn't mean that the same course of events would have happened in the past, even if they were given electricity or the gift of flight or any other "modern" discovery. Many past civilizations focussed on spirituality or family or worshipping their leader, etc. They did not share the same lust for money and material objects which is now an almost universal interest behind everything in present day society. Today, everything has to be done faster, better, cheaper, easier. What if people were okay with torches? What if they had accepted their lives for what they were. hard work and all?

I do believe that is the case here, I'm sure we weren't the first civilization to have technology, especially if you believe in the whole "aliens created us/aided us" doctrine. Even if you don't, it's still arrogant to believe that the societies that created the strucutres I listed above were too ignorant or primitive to make a battery or light bulb or any other convenience. Maybe these technologies have been invented and etched into our timeline, only in a form which we are unfamiliar with.

In relation to this subject, I would check out Christopher Dunn's book, The Giza Power Plant , in which he details the true puropse of the great pyramid and the evidence supporting his theory. After cross checking his evidence, I am convinced that he has nailed down the true purpose of the pyramid, it's a very intriguing read and just might make you look at our past a little differently.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20
Looking at Stonehenge, the Giza pyramids, Easter island, the Parthenon, the Temple of Bacchus in Baalbek, Lebanon, we see ancient civilizations accomplishing engineering feats which rival those of our own engineers today.


In terms of grandiosity or sheer scale, perhaps. Even if you limit your definition of "engineering" to architecture, stuff like Taiwan 101 or the Chunnel surpasses the ancient structures in terms of pure technical merit. When you include the staggering quantity of all of the products of engineering, ancient structures out of context aren't really that impressive.

I am sitting in front of a phosphorecent glass plate which is being zapped by a raygun 995328 times per pass, 72 times per second. It recieves its instructions from millions of transistors and resistors, packed into a tiny silicon chip the size of my thumbnail with microscopic precision. It's made out of semiconductors, metal, and plastic which have been refined in giant refineries and mined en masse by giant machines. Parts were manufactured in China, Malaysia, and hither and yon out of raw materials from half a world away. There's millions of them all over the world -- and they're all connected by a practically self-managing physical network managed by layers and layers of software protocols.

At the moment, I am periodically sending a string of data packets to the machine which resolves when a DNS server is asked the identity of "track.dhl-usa.com." This computer uses that same chip to follow the progress of a single parcel out of thousands, which is identified by firing a laser against a printed decal for a fraction of a second. Then it responds to my computer's query with a burst of electric signals which translate to "Your books are 30 miles away but you can't have them until Wednesday. Neener neener!"

And that's just the computer I use to browse the web and screw around. Now apply that same depth of engineering to something substantial, like an aircraft carrier or nuclear reactor. Quoth Neo, "Whoa!"


Many past civilizations focussed on spirituality or family or worshipping their leader, etc. They did not share the same lust for money and material objects which is now an almost universal interest behind everything in present day society. Today, everything has to be done faster, better, cheaper, easier.


It's pretty much unprecedented in the history of mankind for a society to remain entirely static when they have the means and ability to refine their materials and methods. This process is entirely unconnected to their ulterior (or at least stated) motives. These ancient societies weren't as simple and hive-minded as people seem to think. While they did derive a spiritual/communal benefit from monumental projects like the pyramids (and don't think we don't -- Mount Rushmore, the Eiffel Tower, and St. Peter's Basilica, for instance), they were still a conglomeration of individuals and that's where technological progress is made.


I do believe that is the case here, I'm sure we weren't the first civilization to have technology, especially if you believe in the whole "aliens created us/aided us" doctrine. Even if you don't, it's still arrogant to believe that the societies that created the strucutres I listed above were too ignorant or primitive to make a battery or light bulb or any other convenience. Maybe these technologies have been invented and etched into our timeline, only in a form which we are unfamiliar with.


How is it arrogant? What's arrogant is assuming that they could not achieve without technology, aliens, or the occult. A lack of technology (as we think of it in 2005) does not imply a lack of intellectual ability or dexterity. If you go to a "primitive" society today and really observe them closely, you'll see that they're really not so primitive at all. They do what works for them within their means, and they constantly improve on that. When you apply your own cultural context to a completely different society, you're crippling your ability to analyze your observations.

In a thousand years, there will probably be people in a group similar to ATS sitting around and trying to figure out how we bumpkins in A.D. 2000 managed to create a worldwide network using wires made of glass. "Surely they didn't just stick giant reels on boats (you know, those floating things archaeologists want us to believe they had?) and string 'em out over the ocean. No, they must have had nanobots build them as they went, and our arrogent academics are just too blind to see it!"


[edit on 3-1-2005 by Yorick]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorick

In terms of grandiosity or sheer scale, perhaps. Even if you limit your definition of "engineering" to architecture, stuff like Taiwan 101 or the Chunnel surpasses the ancient structures in terms of pure technical merit. When you include the staggering quantity of all of the products of engineering, ancient structures out of context aren't really that impressive.


Excellent point, but yes, I was referring to architectual engineering. I should have been clear on that, sorry. And while your examples are amazing feats of an advanced knowledge of architectural engineering, please research the various attempts to recreate the parthenon, stonehenge, pyramid, etc. using only the materials and tools available at the respective time period. I remember speaking with a gentleman a couple of years ago who was part of a project to build the parthenon and they could not keep the strucure up! It kept falling down and these were experts from universities all over the world! These societies did not have power tools, cranes, trucks, refined materials, CAD systems or computers for that matter. That is the point I was trying to make.



It's pretty much unprecedented in the history of mankind for a society to remain entirely static when they have the means and ability to refine their materials and methods. This process is entirely unconnected to their ulterior (or at least stated) motives. These ancient societies weren't as simple and hive-minded as people seem to think. While they did derive a spiritual/communal benefit from monumental projects like the pyramids (and don't think we don't -- Mount Rushmore, the Eiffel Tower, and St. Peter's Basilica, for instance), they were still a conglomeration of individuals and that's where technological progress is made.


I wasn't implying that societies remained entirely static! I was suggesting that their achievements wouldn't necessarily follow the same course as modern societie's have, due to their different lifestyles, beliefs, pratctices, etc. My whole point was that they weren't simple, ignorant or hive-minded, just focussed on dissimilar interests than today's society.



How is it arrogant? What's arrogant is assuming that they could not achieve without technology, aliens, or the occult. A lack of technology (as we think of it in 2005) does not imply a lack of intellectual ability or dexterity. If you go to a "primitive" society today and really observe them closely, you'll see that they're really not so primitive at all. They do what works for them within their means, and they constantly improve on that. When you apply your own cultural context to a completely different society, you're crippling your ability to analyze your observations.


I think you're arguing my points here for me Yorick. I'm saying that it is arrogant to believe that these societies were ignorant, because there aren't ruins of skyscrapers, computers or cars. That just because they didn't achieve the exact same feats as we have, then they aren't capable of something equally astounding is arrogant, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was pointing out that previous societies strong points could have even lied in their ingenuity to create something that we haven't even thought of yet. The "alien intervention" theory was brought up to explain another possibility of why past civilizations could have been even more advanced than we are today. If people don't believe that a society could have created these advancements on their own, then maybe they'll believe that they were taught, because there's plenty of evidence of technological advancement in previous societies, above what is normally accepted.



In a thousand years, there will probably be people in a group similar to ATS sitting around and trying to figure out how we bumpkins in A.D. 2000 managed to create a worldwide network using wires made of glass. "Surely they didn't just stick giant reels on boats (you know, those floating things archaeologists want us to believe they had?) and string 'em out over the ocean. No, they must have had nanobots build them as they went, and our arrogent academics are just too blind to see it!"


While I understand your humor here, you're pointing out the exact error that many people make when referring to past civilizations. They assume that to make a gold necklace, it has to be done the way we do it today, or when they made pyramids, that they were built how we would do it, just without the tools, cranes, etc.. These societies could have possesed knowledge far more capable than ours, just different, so we haven't been able to explain certain aspects of how things were done, created, etc..

Yorick, it seems to me that we agree on many points, I don't know how you misunderstood me.




posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Here's a couple of good sites detailing some ancient technological mysteries:

Mysteries of ancient civilizations
Ancient airplanes



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Just got back to this and looked at your link, MS.... and... ARRRGH!!!

You see, I read hieroglyphics (badly, but I can read them.) That page is full of nonsense.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
www.crystalinks.com...

Found the link I was originally referring to....got some good arguements on the technical arguments and other technological aspirations(i.e. metallurgy, etc.)


Okay... lemme 'splain what's going on here: It's speculation by people who see the pictures and come up with ideas about what it means. They believe from their researches (and from others, who looked and interpreted the pcitures) that they have the RIGHT interpretation.

Take this one:





This image implies that something poured into the planet could cause spontaneous growth. The "pouring of water or an offering" and the outlandish angles at which it is being done tends to make it one of countless scenes reinforcing the idea that such scenes are instead showing the migration or transmission of electromagnetic forces. Every sacred symbol - linked to the gods - had a scientific as well as an esoteric purpose


So what's wrong with that? Well, tomb pictures are sort of like editorial cartoons. You have a picture, and then you have a caption about it. Since I can read ancient Egyptian hieroglphs (you can, too... here's a starting place to learn them ... www.fnspo.cz... )

This picture has a caption (only part of it shows.) On it are two cartouches. The one on the left reads "Thutmose" and the one on the right reads "Menkephurere" and is the throne name of Thutmose IV.

(you can see the full cartouche here: www.specialtyinterests.net... )l

The tall, weird plant on the left is a stylized lotus (it's the big white and gold-ish thing right behind the pharaoh's shoulders and back). That's the symbol for "thousand."

The "teepee" triangle (big triangle with little triangle inside it) on the top right and lower right are the symbols for "offering." Under the eye on the right (next to the "plant") is the symbol for "offering/libation of water."

The whole thing is part of a forumla; the Pharaoh Thutmose IV is giving an offering to one of the gods (a thousand jars of oil, I believe, plus a thousand items of some type of incense.) This is a standard "Middle Kingdom" tomb formula that shows the king is giving proper respects to the gods. When he died, he had to go before the gods to declare that he had not harmed innocent people and that he a true believer and worthy of going to the afterlife.

So the panel is part of the painting of his ceremony of thanks to a god for something that was done. I can't find the original so I can't tell you more.

But -- this is how Bad Egyptology becomes Bad Miracle History. Someone looks at a painting and ignores the culture and the writing and comes up with an idea.

It's like having someone from 3035 walk up to the Lincoln Monument in Washington, DC, look at Lincoln, and declare that people who lived during the Civil War were 45 feet tall. And all the women wore beards.


The "lightbulb" stuff, of course, follows Von Daniken and completely ignores the text on the walls (which says that they're pillars and not means of shedding light and talks about the ceremonies where they are used.)

They get some of the metallurgy right, but what they get wrong are the dates (the Egyptians were stomped by the Assyrians, who had bronze. Their metal technology was, in fact, somewhat behind that of everyone else in the area.)

Agh. I can't do a point by point critique of the whole thing, but some of it is right and some of it is very wrong.

I hope the rest of you with an interest in Egyptology will start learning the hieroglyphs and the next time someone points out a fragment of a panel and makes somewild conclusion about it, that you can read enough of the panel to determine what's going on.


Best book for this stuff (available from Amazon... I swear by this one...) is HOW TO READ EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS by Collier and Manley)




[edit on 5-1-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
From the link:

ourworld.compuserve.com...




The ancient Egyptians believed that the sun originally came out of the first hill coming out of the flood of creation (the crypts in Dendera were accurately under this place, so was believed). One version of this was that the sun child (usually Nefertem) climbed out from a lotus flower - the same thing Harsomtus does in form of a snake in the Dendera pictures.


Makes perfect sense to be a light bulb still. The sun child could have been a light bulb. What would you call a source of light that came from some flower looking item? A sun child. Now as for the sun originally coming out of the first hill coming out of the flood of creation. It is my belief that the world did go through some catastrophic events such as flooding earthquakes etc. from continental shifts, polar shifts or whatever the actual cause. There must have been technology before this happened, and when people find things afterwards, they say it came from the gods or from the flood of creation. One must realize that civilization is starting over, so some knowledge of the past civilization is retained, but in a more mysterious way because not everything can be explained.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I noticed when reviewing our weblogs that y'all direct linked to one of our images. That's okay, but if you could save the image locally to your own server, that would be better.

Here is the original story that we published about a year ago which should answer some of your questions regarding the mysterious "Denderah light bulbs" and some other important things:
www.mysteriousworld.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Thanks for the heads-up, Byrd, as well as the links. I shall endeavor to put more research into my thoughts.....


*gleam*

[edit on 5-1-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
GReat post Byrd, by the way, i don't see how that pic. with liquid being poured into a pot signify's that the plant would have amazing spurted growth...lol Your right.

Hmmm, by the way, how are you so sure that the link you posted with a how-to in reading hieroglyphics, is correct!?!? What if it's translations are wrong too!!! I sincerely doubt that we have all the hieroglyphic symbols correct anyway. Lol no matter how we look at it, we can always find a reason to put down all theories lol. We may never know for sure....

By the way what does that guy's book say he thinks the true purpose of the great pyrmids is?? I really want to know. Thanks...
Best wishes,
Dani



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vesuvius 13Hmmm, by the way, how are you so sure that the link you posted with a how-to in reading hieroglyphics, is correct!?!? What if it's translations are wrong too!!!


Well, remember that they started with the Rosetta Stone, which basically gave them the meaning of a bunch of the hieroglyphs. Hundreds of scholars have worked on these (and remember, the hieroglyphics are often captions for pictures, which helps) for the past 120 years or so. They meet and discuss and fight over things, and since material is constantly being discovered, sometimes things get changed.

And the language itself changed from when it was first written in 3000 BC to the last time it was written in 400 AD.

But the scholars know this, and they know what the changes are.

(this is the short explaination. For a lot of explainations about issues and translation and how they're handled, go to google.scholar.com and google for "lignguistics" and "translation." Read up on some of the things (from Boaz onward) that scholars do to learn and preserve ancient languages and writing.


By the way what does that guy's book say he thinks the true purpose of the great pyrmids is?? I really want to know. Thanks...
Best wishes,
Dani

He's just teaching hieroglyphics. Believe me, there's enough about the language to put into three or four books and still not cover it all.

For the Great Pyramid (and the whole complex of nine pyramids and the temples associated with them and all the workmen's quarters and the necropolis and all (it's a HUGE site) and all the writings -- basically the "main line" is exactly what they found. Pyramids are tombs (this has been proven by all the other pyramid tombs around, and there are a lot) and by paintings in the chapels that are in front of the tombs(lots of these) and other artifacts. And the writing as well.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Uh, frankly looks like the guy has a bit of a problem with his bathroom habits and is trying to pee into two cups


Seriously though...very interesting topic. I saw a documentary on the discovery channel where they made a large glass 'bulb' and filled it with materials available only in the time of the Egyptians and the thing lit up...well like a light.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
For the Great Pyramid (and the whole complex of nine pyramids and the temples associated with them and all the workmen's quarters and the necropolis and all (it's a HUGE site) and all the writings -- basically the "main line" is exactly what they found. Pyramids are tombs (this has been proven by all the other pyramid tombs around, and there are a lot) and by paintings in the chapels that are in front of the tombs(lots of these) and other artifacts. And the writing as well.

That is exactly the theory they started with right away, no it simply looks that way, but i don't believe theyre simply tombs because of so many significant things there.
Here is an excerpt from a scientific/archeological whatnot book i'm currently reading.

Of the 10 major pyrimids, only 1, the step pryimid of King Zoser (or Djoser) at Saqqara, showed unmistakable signs of being a tomb although mummy fragments found in it's granite vault proved-when subject to radiocarbon dating- to be dated several centuries later than Zoser's reign. Of the other 9 pyrimids, only 3 had sarcophogi (which were empty) - it is hard to see why thieves should have gone to the trouble of stealing the other six.

Hmmm, a little bit interesting there isn't it???
Heres some other significant details about the pyrimids in egypt.
The walls of the kings chamber in the giza pyrimid is covered with crystallized-salt, for those spiritual people out there you will most likely understand the significance of this.
The pyrimid was also built tuned in perfectly with a strange sound frequency, i don't know how to explain this or word it. But lets say you in the king's chamber and you whisper something lightly to your self, now say a friend is far down below you in the pyrimid, out of normal audibility, your friend is able to hear your whisper from this far away because of the structuring of the pyrimid. The pyrimids also give off a low constant humming sound which we as humans are unable to hear, however animals will. this is similar to the process of gently blowing over the top of an open bottle though, if blowing gently, you won't hear the friction of wind and bottle, however a pet might.
Leonardo da Vinci was also the first to prove that the great pyrimids were built under the amazing concepts of the golden ratio, PHI, 1.618. If you don't know about this number, look it up on google.
There is much more, however i can't remember the details enough to post, please forgive.
Best wishes,
Dani

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Vesuvius 13]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Aye, I have a light bulb kit to sell to anyone! LOL



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   


[edit on 22-1-2005 by lizzardsamok]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join