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.
However, even among those who believe the artifacts were in fact electrical devices, electroplating as a use is not well regarded today. The gilded objects which König thought might be electroplated are now believed to have been fire-gilded (with mercury). Reproduction experiments of electroplating by Dr. Arne Eggebrecht consumed "many" reproduction cells to achieve a plated layer just one micrometre thick. Other scientists noted that Dr. Eggebrecht used a more efficient, modern electrolyte; using only vinegar, the "battery" is very feeble.
An alternative but still electrical explanation was offered by Paul Keyser. It was suggested that a priest or healer, using an iron spatula to compound a vinegar based potion in a copper vessel, may have felt an electrical tingle, and used the phenomenon either for electro-acupuncture, or to amaze supplicants by electrifying a metal statue. [my emphasis]
Testing this idea in the late seventies, Dr Arne Eggebrecht, then director of Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim, connected many replica Baghdad batteries together using grape juice as an electrolyte, and claimed to have deposited a thin layer of silver on to another surface, just one ten thousandth of a millimetre thick.
Other researchers though, have disputed these results and have been unable to replicate them.
"There does not exist any written documentation of the experiments which took place here in 1978," says Dr Bettina Schmitz, currently a researcher based at the same Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum.
"The experiments weren't even documented by photos, which really is a pity," she says. "I have searched through the archives of this museum and I talked to everyone involved in 1978 with no results."
The Baghdad battery - myth or reality?
D. E. Von Handorf.
Plating and Surface Finishing (USA), Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2002, pp. 84-87.
In 1938, Wilhelm Konig, the director of antiquities at the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, was reviewing the findings of archeological digs of a site near Baghdad where the 1936 construction of a rail line had unearthed ancient remains. While it may not be unusual for archeologists to find items in gravesites for which the use is unknown, Konig was taken by one set of four unglazed ceramic vessels found in a grave that was dated in the time of the Parthians occupation of the area (248 BC-226 AD). Three vessels had copper cylinders made of copper sheet with a copper end that was lead-soldered to the bottom of the cylinders. One of these vessels had an iron spike inside the copper cylinder, with the remains of an asphalt-like plug. The other two vessels did not have the iron spike inside, but there were other iron spikes in the grave. The fourth ceramic vessel did not have the copper cylinder. Inside the copper cylinders were flaky remains of a papyrus-like material. Konig decided that the vessels looked like galvanic cells. Thus began the story of the Baghdad Battery, and the controversy that surrounds that description.
Originally posted by Lexicon
Unfortunately, respected archaeologists generally don’t spend their time refuting crackpot theories. They may not even be aware of them. But they do present their findings, especially ones as important as the one in question, in scholarly articles and books.
I have yet to find anything academic which mentions this fusion.
As for seeing ‘reports,’ no I haven’t. I’ve seen an article from Pravda
--and websites that anyone and their grandmother could put up.
And I don’t think any of the sites I’ve seen were ‘science sites.’ If you’d direct me to some scholarly report that gives documented evidence for this fusion I would be more than willing to entertain the idea.
I searched for various words and found none in ‘verses’ with the same meaning as those claimed—I didn’t search for entire sentences. It’s unfortunate that you don’t intend on proving for yourself whether or not a claim is true, especially when it’s not that difficult to do so—it’s the attitude the hoaxers expected of you. I will continue to search through the Mahabharata and keep you posted.
You've been given the citation,at least two of the scientists by name,and even the experiments performed. If you can dismiss that as"threadbare" then there's not much point in presenting much of anything.
I haven’t been given a citation, if by citation you mean a journal name, volume and page number, which would be the proper way to find a scholarly report.
The internet is a nice place to find general information, but it’s not going to answer everything for you. I have access to a good (although not perfect) university library, and I’m willing to use that library to educate myself if only you would point me towards the information.
The article did not mention what material was used for the bath, at least the one I read. The mention of electroplating was a few sentences long, I believe.
In addition, you even mistook it (or another website, earlier in this discussion) as making the claim that 4500-year old electroplated batteries were actually discovered, so it must have been badly written or something.
As I said, I have access to a university library and I know how to use it. Take advantage of that and give me something to do.
We must ignore all we don’t know, because we don’t know it. So We search to find out more, but until then we work on what we know is generally correct.
If we are to presuppose things about ancient civilizations for which we do not have proof, we would be introducing countless numbers of new variables into our calculations. We would be inventing new theories left, right and centre to explain everything in the archaeological record. We would be making a mockery of science.
We don’t suppose that the Egyptians had giant power stations. We don’t suppose that aliens interacted with humankind. We don’t suppose what we don’t have reason to suppose.
Could you give me a particular title or two so that I might find them? Also, have you ever heard of this thing called fiction? We have a lot of it, you know.
Okay, before I go any further, the time was primitive. Apparently, you’re claiming that technology was given to Sumerians, Akkadians, and Egyptians (and Harappans?) from aliens
and this technology was used in such a way that the Sumerians would have a battery, but would have it in a clay pot—this suggests that the knowledge among the human half of this culture was, indeed, primitive. So primitive that aliens felt they had to give them technology.
It is only the fact that a few choice bits of technology have been discovered that you claim an advanced civilization. We have a civilization with a few advanced items given to it by the ‘heavenly beings’ and this makes it an advanced civilization?
Now, those who discovered the battery did not, in fact, discover the principles of electricity. They discovered that if they put metal A and metal B into liquid C, something happens. Heck, even your claim that aliens gave the technology to humans precludes them from having discovered it, so I don’t know what you’re trying to do, saying that humans discovered all this stuff with their sharp minds.
I’m pretty sure math was no accident, but what do you mean by ‘charting the solar system’? If you’re about to claim that they knew the relative distances of the planets from the sun, I would like you to provide the evidence up front.
I’d think that someone who defends these theories like you should have some examples at your fingertips.
P.S. - One is supposed to put spaces after commas.
Originally posted by Cicada
It is really poor message board etiquette to attack a person's posts on grammatical issues, especially as a means to boost yourself up while you're losing an argument. You have no idea who you are communicating with, what their education level is, whether English is their first language, if they have a disability of some nature, etc. You run a great risk of offending someone on a level that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You have a very school oriented approach to all of this, but this isn't school, no one is being graded by you, and there are no formalized formats for posting. Individuals using these boards are allowed to express themselves however they feel comfortable as long as they comply with a few simple, reasonable rules.
Originally posted by intrepid
Whoa, is this the English 101 forum?
Originally posted by Nygdan
As far as asking for evidence and a rationale, well, of course thats what is asked for, thats what we're all here for, to discuss these subjects. We can't discuss them in a sensbile manner if the ideas are so airy and insubstantial that they fall apart the minute someone tries to apply a sensible system of investigation and consideration on them.
Originally posted by Cicada
Of course, but there's a level of speculative theory that has to be allowed to take place in certain gray areas. There is at times levels of insistence on sources representing some sort of authority that to me seems to totally miss the point. To dismiss any topic too abstract for investigation means that all discussions of philosophy or theology are off limits. There are scores of suppositions that have to be made to accept any paradigm, even the popular ones. We are not able from our limited human frame of reference to take into account the entire field of factors on any topic, and this is especially true in a discussion of esoteric subject matter. No offense is meant by this to any one, but these matters simply aren't that cut and dried.
Originally posted by Cicada
You are very self-defensive. We're talking about different things here. I'm not involved in the "fused layer" high-tech weaponry argument. There's a lack of careful reading going on here and for some reason a strong urge to separate people into camps. If someone is debating a specific example of something, something physical that can be observed with the senses, than I'm all for looking at it and investigating it to the highest rigors available to us. This is different to the knee-jerk reaction frequently expressed on these boards to any notion of alternative history, any deviation from the mainstream attitudes that is on the borderline of being treated as scientific dogma. It's anti-imagination, anti-intuition, and dependant upon the perfect infallibility of popular consensus. To me it reads as lazy arrogance and it's as irritating to me as those red marks on Word seem to be to you. If you don't feel that you are guilty of this than there's really nothing to get upset about.