It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something to think about....

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2002 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The pyramids kind of pale in comparison to, say, the Hubble telescope.

They only had to get archetecture right, and they had models in nature and had some other forms that they used before the Great Pyramids were built (the mastabas and the step pyramids.)

Hubble brings together a mind-boggling amount of technology. So does putting a spacecraft on Mars... or doing microsurgery.

As to them being more intelligent -- no. Otherwise we'd have seen faster development of technology with the tools they had.




posted on Nov, 11 2002 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Well Byrd, don't forget the AMAZING leaps in medicinery that the Egyptians had...from using metal plates to set bones, to rudimentary brain surgery. And let's not even discuss their amazing knowledge of dentistry


And while I understand what you are getting at with Hubble and all, even the Hubble Space Telescope is all about Architecture, just of a different kind, where as a building you build so it stands up, the HST you launch into a "build" so that it stays in orbit. Everything goes back to geometry


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 11 2002 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
And while I understand what you are getting at with Hubble and all, even the Hubble Space Telescope is all about Architecture, just of a different kind, where as a building you build so it stands up, the HST you launch into a "build" so that it stays in orbit.


So we should just forget about electronics, semiconductors, calculus, and high-grade optics?

The hubble is about architecture? Where do you get this crap?



posted on Nov, 11 2002 @ 10:17 PM
link   
lol william it's not crap, I'm speaking of the delicate balance in this universe...the orbits and such, did I referense anything to electronics? Calculus is a form of geometry, the geometry of curves and motion.

Remember I said "everything" goes back to geometry, not that it IS geometry.

As for electronics and such, I'm sure you can find geometry there...look at its lay out...the patters
Hardware can be very geometric


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Actually, it all goes back to basic math & merely expands from there...Even in electronics: Ex: If we use X density of carbon, then how much to we need to pack into *this* resistor to give us R amount of resistance?

What type of metal & how much of it do we need to make this capacitor & how much of *this* type of electrolyte do we put in between the plates.

Our planet spins at X velocity & orbits our sun at Y velocity, our sun orbits the galactic core at z speed & c direction...How do we get our rocket boosters to launch into Earth Orbit when there are already N satelittes orbiting without hitting any of them?

If you think about it, the entire universe & everything in it is Mathematics given physical form...And who says that our universe came into being by "accident"?



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I am pretty sure our ancient ancestors sometime or another were more advanced than us.

The flood story in the bible..did you guys not read in the old testament where it depicts that the civilization that was fallen to the flood was people so intelligent they had answers to all things yet they also could not believe in the ways of God, so God showed them, he indeed, is the all knowing.

I dont think we will ever know until we get out and look ourselves besides having others look for us...i think we have been lied to about archealogical finds and history itself.
OrionSirius



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:11 PM
link   
So start taking sociology and archaeology classes, Orion. You'll find it very entertaining and enlightening.

In fact, you can do citizen science projects and go along on archaeological digs and other projects. I'm making arrangements to go on a trip with a hisorical society this winter to photgraph Indian rock art.

So get thyself out and do likewise!



posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Schneider xplainz a lot:


crowdedskies.com...

true or false?



posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 06:28 PM
link   
About the flood myth... I believe it is considered universal since there are civilizations from every major continent with records of the flood around the same time. Saying that a great flood did not occur is like saying that (in the future), the U.S. was never a powerful nation because giant skyscrapers were not found in every civilization. So in conclusion, saying that the great flood didn't occur is a terrible assumption, with its only evidence being "not having evidence."

With all of the arguments flying around, perhaps the biggest argument would be plain and simple.

People

If you are going to have a really powerful country, you have to have an enormous amount of people. The biggest problem with the past is that there were never enough people. Finding 10,000 people in a city/nation would never been enough to have a great nation, nor would 100k, maybe not even 1M, but closer to 100M+. People are the life of continuing technology. Unless little grey men fell from the sky, the past technology would have no chance of developing to monumental heights.

On a side note, the Egyptians and Mayans probably did have some unknown technologies. I've known people to visit the temples and they weren't not the same after the experience. Some things are great and some are fantastic. The engineering of the time was a fantastic feat for such a small group of people (by comparison). We would be idiots to assume that what we know is all there is to know. Too many of our top thinkers get stumped on problems and too many idiots stifle the answers when they are available. It is the way of our lives.

The final analysis is that the ancient civilizations were pretty smart, they could make some nifty inventions, but they were no where near where we are today because they don't have the major resource of people.

That's just my opinion, but I'd call it an informed one.

P.S. Crystal technologies may be strong enough to raise eyebrows about past civilizations, but we can't put all of our faith in one resource. Crystals can make good storage devices, but I'd hardly say that ancient civilizations could really take advantage of that alone.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
So start taking sociology and archaeology The pyramids kind of pale in comparison to, say, the Hubble telescope.
They only had to get archetecture right, and they had models in nature and had some other forms that they used before the Great Pyramids were built (the mastabas and the step pyramids.)
Hubble brings together a mind-boggling amount of technology. So does putting a spacecraft on Mars... or doing microsurgery.
As to them being more intelligent -- no. Otherwise we'd have seen faster development of technology with the tools they had.
classes, Orion. You'll find it very entertaining and enlightening.
In fact, you can do citizen science projects and go along on archaeological digs and other projects. I'm making arrangements to go on a trip with a hisorical society this winter to photgraph Indian rock art.
So get thyself out and do likewise!

And anthropology too!! Agreed? I have learned much from reading your posts, Byrd, even if I don't always agree with your position. You never seem to pull a fact out of thin air, they are always supported, imo.
One serious question, re: the great pyramid at Giza. Given the copper tool, lever, fulcrum, screw, wedge, and unlimited labour, do you feel that today, we could exactly replicate it? In every minute and precise detail? Using only the tools known to have been available to the 4th dynasty builders, I am skeptical that it could be done. Granted, the priests likely had very advanced math skills, but the design, planning, and construction of that one 'rockpile', is a heck of a feat. I agree that the people who built are not smarter than us, but I don't think we're any smarter than them. Or we would have already had someone publish a unassailable plan to carry out such a task, which many world class brains have tried.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join