It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"The battery has been recreated and found to actually worked."
Postulating that there really was a working battery, (and I think it's safe to assume so), most of the articles I 've read say it was probably used as an electro-plating tool. Building a light bulb, including machining a hard metal, drawing a vacuum , etc. is a lot bigger step than putting vinegar and bronze in a jar and sealing it with pitch.
As one final nugget of trivia, the term "limelight" comes from the incandescent light produced by a rod of lime bathed in a flame of oxygen and hydrogen. At the time it was invented, limelight was the brightest source of artificial light known. One of it's first uses was for lighting theater stages, and actors and actresses were keen to position themselves "in the limelight" so as to be seen to their best effect.
Originally posted by cimmerius
There is a carving that shows an oval object with a snake on it.
Some have said it resembles a bulb with an internal filament setting on an insulating pillar and connected to an electrical cable.
Originally posted by isisraven
Then what do you suggest they are?
It is not sufficient to say what something is not, without including what it might be, and what purpose it might have served.
Please offer an alternative.
Originally posted by Byrd
Nobody puts snakes in lightbulbs. And we don't find the huge, glassy remains of lightbulbs around. And did you notice that NOBODY shows the pillars in a straight photo? It's usually taken at an angle.
That's because if you shoot it at an angle, you can ignore some of the features -- features that give more clues about the object. You can also pretend that the writing around it that talks about it doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Netchicken
What about the glass blowing technology to make the case, did they have that as well?
On this: the earliest glass blowing yet found only dates to 80 BCE. But, they cevrtainly oculd have used alabaster
What about the meterlergy abilty to manufacture the wire ? Did they have that?
How about the chemical ability to create batteries, or evidence of electricity creation via generators attached to water wheels, etc.? Where is the evidence of that?
The egyptians use powdered lime in glassmaking, and could have used it to make filaments. And the electrolyte could have been vinegar.
How about the non conducting casing for the electric wires? Is there evidence for that?
They could have used papyrus and mica as insulation, arrived at through experimentation.
Just WHAT evidence is there for their ability to create electrical light?
There is plenty of evidence that they had the ability and the ingenuity to create electricity and possibly lightbulbs. They either had; were contemporary with; or could have discovered through experimentation,
various means of electrical invention.
As I said, it is not my purpose to say that "they did", but that "they could have".
Originally posted by Dallas
Hi there. Van Danigen(sp?) pointed out the wall paintings of supposed light Egyptian light bulbs. And though he has pointed out a lot of nonsense in his time, I have wondered why the top of the tombs lack any oil or darkened wax residue?
Originally posted by torbjon
As an aside, the ol’ “If the ancients had a light bulb (helicopter, space ship, insert your high tech gizmo here) then they would have had lots of light bulbs (gizmos)” is a fallacy. Building on that fallacy doesn’t help. “If the ancients had (high tech) they would have lots of (high tech) and we would find the remains of (high tech) which we haven’t, therefore they didn’t have (high tech)”
It may sound logical to say “If they had one, then they had more than one” but that argument doesn’t hold a drop of water.