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.

 

An Argument For Ancient Technology

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I would like to state a hypothesis. I say "hypothesis" because I'm not going to cite specific references to present a case, but rather state a rational argument for the possibility of Ancient Technology.

In Western Science we have a sense of arrogant elitism, based on the premise that we are the most advanced civilization that ever was. However, in this belief, we lose sight of the most basic of Scientific Principles, that of Scientific Method, or considering all possibilities and through the process of elimination, determining what proves to be true. Instead, Western Science has begun to fall into the same the pit of impediment towards Truth that the Catholic Church did. We have begun to replace Scientific Method with the Method of Tenacity — persisting in that which one is inclined to think, and the Method of Authority — conformity to a source of ready-made beliefs. In Modern Archaeology especially, the use of the Method of Tenacity and the Method of Authority over Scientific Method is most apparent.

There are numerous anomalies in Ancient History, or as they are commonly called "mysteries". Most Archaeologists won't touch them with a 10 foot pole lest they become ridiculed by their peers and become the laughing stock of the Archaeological Community. One need only look at the career of John Allegro to see a perfect example of this, even though his research was sound, it conflicted with the Method of Tenacity and Method of Authority in the field of Modern Archaeology and was rejected by his peers.

Of course, there are also many examples pseudoarchaeology wherein the researchers do the very same, presenting bias based on Method of Tenacity or Method of Authority to the point that their findings are more mythical than truthful.

One of the most common fields of battle in the field of Archaeology is over Ancient Technology. Mainstream Archaeology uses their Methods of Tenacity and Methods of Authority, based on the arrogant premise that Technology is linear and that the Technology we have today is superior and what little Technology ancient civilizations had was inferior, while pseudoarchaeologists do the same, using their own Methods of Tenacity and Methods of Authority, based on the premise of Alien Interference, or Lost Continents of Mu/Atlantis/Lemuria, Nationalistic/Chauvinistic Supremacy (such as Aryan Supremacy or the Lost Tribes of Israel), or Religious Beliefs (Christianity is not alone in promoting pseudoarchaeology, but in the West, they are the most pronounced example). Both sides discredit the other, despite the fact that both sides are using the same flawed methods.

I believe that to find the Truth then all things must be tried, and that we must hold fast to those that prove to be true, not limiting ourselves to biased beliefs, but rather exploring all possibilities, no matter how outlandish they may seem. I also believe that there is not always one convenient Truth, but that sometimes there are examples where more than one explanation can be simultaneously demonstrable, certain, true, and without doubt.

Modern Science holds the premise that Technology is linear, that humanity has evolved along one path from the cave to space. Their belief is that depending on what time a civilization existed, determines its Technological level.

Stone Age
Paleolithic Stone Age
Mesolithic Stone Age
Neolithic Stone Age
Chalcolithic/Copper Age
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Steam Age
Combustion Age
Atomic Age
Information/Silicon Age

I hold that this model is grossly flawed as it is culture-centric and does not account for the possibility for Technical Advances in the same Age to surpass Technical Advances of a subsequent Age. Likewise, this model does not allow for the possibility of individual civilizations to rise technologically beyond their neighbors and fall technologically. Lastly, it does not take into account sudden technological advances beyond the technology available in that Age made by accidental discovery (or plundering of a more advanced civilization).

Let me argue the second of those first. It is a matter of fact that the greatest of Empires that rise must also fall. During the rise of an Empire, great advances are made that benefit that civilization, however, once they fall those advances are lost to subsequent civilizations. These falls are marked in History with vast Dark Ages whose expanse can sometimes span thousands of years. Simple technologies such as Central Heating and Cooling, Bathing, Sanitation, Irrigation, Medicine, etc. were lost to the Western World at the fall of the Roman Empire, not to be gained again by any other civilization until the 19th century. If one takes into account the rise and fall of empires in regards to technology, one would see that technology does not advance in a linear fashion, but rather an ebb and tide such as waves (perhaps Planck's Wave Theory that started our knowledge of Quantum Physics is not reserved to just Physics, but Anthropology as well).

As far as the possibility for Technical Advances in the same Age to surpass Technical Advances of a subsequent Age, we see this all the time even in our Modern Age. When a culture switches technologies to enter another technological Age, they must go backwards in order to go forwards. The switch from Analog to Digital is a perfect example. As a technology, Analog is the process of taking an signal and translating it into electronic pulses. Digital on the other hand is breaking the signal into a binary format where the audio or video data is represented by a series of "1"s and "0"s. Analog has been around for almost 100 years. It is a fairly simplistic process and it is fairly inexpensive to implement and use. The trouble is, Analog signals have size limitations as to how much data they can carry, and thus the technology wasn't as easy to advance beyond those limitations as it was to switch to Digital, even though we had to take a step backwards to make this change to a newer technology that is far more complicated and very expensive to implement. However, there is nothing that Digital can do that Analog couldn't do, given time for further advancement of Analog technology...

Continued in Next Post




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus
Their belief is that depending on what time a civilization existed, determines its Technological level.

I disagree!

I say that the name of the time period is determined by its technological level, not the other way around. This is based on what we have discovered in archeological digs, not a linear belief in how technology evolved.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
We now have optical Vinyl Record Players that do not come in contact with the Vinyl Record, and providing an accurate waveform without noise or degradation of the recording, while Digital recording takes snapshots of the Analog signal at a certain rate (44,100 times per second) with a series of steps, and is not capturing the complete sound, but approximating it. Some sounds that have very quick transitions will be distorted by Digital because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In this micro-Age example, Analog technology is able to advance beyond what Digital currently can, when scientists continue to evolve an older (outdated) Technology.

(And on a side-note, even just a few years outside of the Analog Age, that Technology seems foreign to us. Show a Vinyl Record to a five year old child and ask them to explain what it is. Even if that five year old child is adept at using their iPod, the last thing they would ever consider is that this round piece of vinyl would hold audio recordings, even though they are but one generation removed from the use of that Analog Technology!)

Jules Verne was perhaps the one figure to bring to light the idea that technology of one Age can advance indefinitely if a Civilization didn't change their form of Technology thereby entering a different Age. The Science Fiction of Jules Verne showed what could have become had we not changed from the Iron/Steam Age to the Steel/Combustion Age. And this is not just a matter of Science Fiction dreaming either, as many of his ideas have been proven to be possible using advanced Steam Age techniques. Also, Da Vinci is another historical personage that has shown this to be true. His Medieval Iron Age inventions rivaled that of what we could not accomplish until the Steel/Combustion Age or beyond, even though his inventions utilized advanced techniques available to the Medieval Iron Age.

If a Bronze Age civilization advanced their Technology using only those methods and tools that were available to the Bronze Age, they could conceivably obtain the same Technological level that we have in the Silicon/Information Age, but in ways that would be so foreign to our understanding that we would entirely miss the idea that they were Technologies as they would not appear to be such according to our limited understanding under the constraints of how our current Technology functions. Likewise, if Bronze Age Technology advanced beyond our own level of advancement in the Silicon/Information Age, we would not even be able to detect it until our own Age advanced to the same Technological level.

Again, as we showed that a Vinyl Record would be a foreign concept to one generation removed from that Technology in a different Technology Age, let us take that even further...how would a civilization 1000 years from now, let alone 10,000 years from now, after several different changes in Technological Ages, ever conceive that a CD would hold data in a Digital format? They wouldn't! A CD would be surmised to be some decoration of a primitive culture, perhaps a sign of Social Status or even a Religious Fetish! Who is to say that what we consider a Bronze Age bracelet from Ancient Egypt isn't actually an advanced Bronze Age Personal Storage Device?

Let's give another modern example of to substantiate this. We are facing, in this Digital Information Age a potential Dark Ages. Digital Archaeology is facing a difficult time because we have stored information on media storage formats whose technologies have been lost in but 30 years! Not only do we no longer possess the technology to read these media storage formats, but the format they are stored in is proprietary and lost as well. What happens 30 years from now to your pictures when they are stored on Zip Disks in Adobe Photoshop format when there is no longer any device that reads Zip Disks and even if you did reverse engineer one, you'd still just recover a bunch of gobbly-gook that made no sense as you'd have to reverse engineer the format as well. If you had the working knowledge of how those formats were created and what those devices did, you could reverse engineer them, but after that working knowledge is gone, the ability to reverse engineer both fades and is eventually lost. AS400 Backups are almost to this point. Punchcards almost certainly are.

Without an understanding of what a device is, and what its purpose is, then that technology is no longer considered a technological device, but nothing more than an enigmatic decorative object.

The Ancient Egyptians claimed that their Priests could communicate across vast distances using a Bone of Horus to work their magic. We scratched that up as magic-mumbo-jumbo talk, and discounted the possibility entirely. We even found one instance of copper wire connecting two Ancient Temples. Still, no one even considered the possibility that this was just done for something other than a superstitious religious reason. It wasn't until X-Ray analysis of a mummy that we finally discovered a Bone of Horus. It turned out to be an ornately engraved magnet (although we called it a "talisman"). What do you get when you combine a magnet with copper wire, both of which were available to the Bronze Age? You get a primitive telephone! Would 19th century Archaeologists be able to figure this out? No, because that exceeded their own Technological level. Now that we have reached that same Technological level in our own Age we realize what these two things combined make, but still we are to Civio-centric to believe that certain priesthoods amongst the Ancient Egyptians had working telephones (even though the Ancient Egyptians claimed to be able to do such and the methods whereby they could do this have been discovered, we still refuse to believe it is possible!).

Continued in Next Post

[edit on 22-7-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
This is an interesting theory you have put forth, the problem is the theories such as the Ancient Egypt Priest Phone would have to be tested to see if it actually worked. Basically you recreate the pendant/phone whichever, to the same specs and see if it really works, if it works without alterations being made, it would show the idea as being plausible, if not, then more than likely all you have is just another interesting theory.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Extra terrestrial means "More of the Terra"....

Ever wonder, How did people start claiming land? How and when did someone say, " this land is mine, I am going to keep it"?

It takes power to overcome. You find a lot more then just Oil in the ground....you find yesterdays technology and who ever has that, has everything.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Another example would be the recent discovery of nanite technology in Bronze Age cosmetics and also present in stones that we had previously assumed to be quarried by the Ancient Egyptians, but apparently were bonded and molded instead. We would have never discovered the presence of nanites in these substances until we had developed similar technology of our own. We are just beginning to apply our knowledge of nanites commercially. The thought of a civilization thousands of years ago, at the Bronze Age level of civilization having technology that would work on a nano-level is too shocking to our understanding of how technology evolves. Never mind, of course, that the Ancient Greeks had the same ability, and it was so commonplace to make it into their cosmetics as well!

Same goes for the ability to Hermetically Seal (by creating an artificial vacuum). How did the Ancient Egyptians Hermetically Seal things in the Bronze Age when we didn't possess that technology until the 17th century?

What about Ancient Egyptian Papyri that detail brain surgery and the diagnosis and curing of Cancer at Bronze Age technology? How is that possible? Instead, we just dismiss it as mumbo-jumbo-magic-talk rather than consider the possibility.

These technological advances didn't have to occur in the same evolutionary path as our technology advanced. They didn't have to develop their own Iron Age, then a Steam Age, then a Steel/Combustion Age, then an Atomic Age to achieve these Technologies. These could have been achieved through a more advanced understanding using just plain-old Bronze Age Technology. No superstitious explanation needed, just a humility to admit that our Modern Science isn't all that and a bag of chips too.

All of this precludes accidental discoveries or sudden advancements of technology through unintentional circumstance. Let's take the discovery of concrete by the Ancient Egyptians. We believe that the invention of concrete wasn't until the 19th Century, being an advance of the Industrial Age. However, we have plenty of examples where concrete was used by the Bronze Age Romans. Still, the possibility that the Ancient Egyptians had concrete somehow defies our rational scientific sensibilities! Even though limestone is omnipresent in the Nile Delta, it is ridiculous for us to consider that during the span of 5000 years not a single person ever dropped water on the ground and observed that when it dried it hardened into a smooth surface. So, we chalk up the building of the Pyramids to mass slave labor even though they only had slaves during one period spanning 40 years. There are pseudoarcheaologists who posit the Pyramids were made by everything from levitation and telekinesis to UFOs. However, all it took was a team of six Japanese Engineers who were able to move the same sized quarried stones using simple Bronze Age tools, by first mixing primitive concrete from the limestone in Egypt and paving ramps with it prior to using rollers, levers and pulleys! However, their findings were discounted because we could not accept that the Ancient Egyptians may have accidentally discovered, and then utilized concrete as they were a Bronze Age civilization and couldn't possibly utilized technologies from an Industrial Age.

It is a saying in America that "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". This means that when something is required, we invent ways to achieve that, out of necessity. Necessity is a powerful driving force that allows us to come up with solutions that are within our means. The Ancient World was no different. A Bronze Age culture invents Granaries because they need to keep their large harvest through the winter months, while a Steam Age culture invents Root Cellars. Rats infest your Granaries and Root Cellars so both invent a way to stop the rats...a Bronze Age culture domesticates cats, while an Industrial Age invents rat poison. Both are perfectly viable solutions to the problem, both utilizing means within their level of Technology.

As our culture and our Science evolves and grows ever more complex, we tend to forget the principle of Occam's Razor, that the simplest solution is often the correct one. We expect that Technology has to be complex and can only be achieved through complexity, forgetting that Natural Philosophy allows us to learn by simple observation and applying those observations can be done with far less of an understanding of Technology and Science than what we are accustomed. Natural Philosophy is what allowed Jewish Kabbalists the ability to determine the Double Helix of DNA and the structure of Periodic Table of the Elements 1500 years before Modern Science. They couldn't see DNA or Atoms as they lacked powerful enough microscopes to do so, and they didn't have access to all of the Elements that did in later years, but they were able to do such by observing Nature around them, cataloging patterns, and elucidating the Truth, far beyond their Technological Age, from these simple observations.

It doesn't take much for even a primitive to determine the so called "God Equation", even though our greatest of Mathematical Minds have yet to solve it using Modern Mathematics. One need only look at shells on a beach, or the way the wind blows the sand to determine both this Equation and it's solution. You don't need complex computers and advanced technology to discover what can be discovered through far simpler means, even by an older Technology Age.

Until the time comes that we openly embrace other possible means to the same ends, will we fail to understand the achievements of Ancient Civilizations. For as long as we insist that Technology advances in a linear fashion and that our Modern Technology is the pinnacle of Human Advancement, will we fall short of being Scientific in our Methods. We must embrace all possibilities as possibilities and consider each and every one of them, eliminating them one by one until the solutions present themselves. Otherwise, to do otherwise our Science becomes our new Religion and falls into arrogant error. It is essential that we don't immediately discount Ancient Technology for the sake of our own pride, but remain open to the possibility unless evidence shows us otherwise and it is eliminated as a possibility.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 
Crikey! You've put a lot of effort into that post. For that reason, I'll only suggest that you could double-check some of the points you make. One or two points are at least an arm's length away from known facts



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
There's a long leap between "Want to believe" and "have justifiable cause to believe"

You're still puttering around on the "Want to believe" end of the spectrum.

Nanotechnology in egyptian stone? Where? Got us a source? Molded? What?

Want to know how to hermetically seal something? It's very easy, I'm sure an older aunt could tell you. I'll spare her the trouble.

Take a watertight container - say, a mason jar. Heat it, perhaps in a pot of boiling water. Then put the lid on it (preferably one with a soft rim, like rubber, leather, or wax) and remove it from the heat.

The hot air / food / whatever inside the jar will cool. As things cool, they contract, get smaller. Since the jar is sealed, this creates a vacuum, which serves to tighten the seal further. You can then apply another sealant to the lid (Usually wax or paraffin, but if you've got a genie in there, I reccomend lead and a seal of solomon)

You now have your very own hermetically-sealed jar. You could even do it accidentally!



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Crikey! You've put a lot of effort into that post. For that reason, I'll only suggest that you could double-check some of the points you make. One or two points are at least an arm's length away from known facts


The devil is always in the details.


That's one of the reasons I didn't want to cite any specifics, and why I perhaps shouldn't have. I primarily wanted to put down an idea that had been bouncing around in my head for a long time that needed to get out, rather than take the time right now to cite references for specific examples. My brain works in a non-linear fashion, getting from A to Z in obtuse ways which might appear to be leaps even though there is still reason (Euclidean) behind it. Ever watch the TV Series Connections? That show would take two seemingly disparate events in history, like how did the killing of a butterfly in 15th century England lead to the invention of the Atomic Bomb in the 20th century United States, and show the steps in between to explain the Causality between them. My brain works like that on an intuitive level. Documentation is alas something I need to learn to do along the way, instead of afterward.


Feel free to take issues with the details and point out erroneous information. I take no offense at such, and on the contrary, appreciate it...as it would force me to cite reference.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Look at Rome prior to it's collapse, when the city was barely populated and its citizens amounted to little more than a rabble squatting in the shadow of it's monuments.
The problem with technology is that the civilization or culture that creates it has to be capable of ensuring it's continuity in the event of war, famine, or disaster, otherwise its back to the stone age for them - and how many times has that happened?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There's a long leap between "Want to believe" and "have justifiable cause to believe" You're still puttering around on the "Want to believe" end of the spectrum.


Don't mistake considering and including the possibility with wanting to believe, although the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. The point of the article was to show that Science doesn't always adhere to Scientific Method, especially in the less empirical fields of Science. Possibilities are discounted or discredited for no reason other than they do not fit within the Methods of Authority or Tenacity. Possibilities should be eliminated based on the application of Scientific Method, not for any other reason.


Nanotechnology in egyptian stone? Where? Got us a source? Molded? What?


Yes sir. After the initial discovery, we have been finding that the Ancient Egyptians used Nanotechnology in everything from Ink, Hair Dye, Eye Liner, Stone, Jewelry and more.

Nanoscience vs. Nanotechnology

Early Use of PbS Nanotechnology in Ancient Hair Dye

The Pyramids Are Made Out of Man-Made Stone and Molded

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Pyramids - U.S. National Science Foundation



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by fraterormus
Their belief is that depending on what time a civilization existed, determines its Technological level.

I disagree!

I say that the name of the time period is determined by its technological level, not the other way around. This is based on what we have discovered in archeological digs, not a linear belief in how technology evolved.


That is not quite true (and admittedly neither was my original statement in that quote). Take an excavation like Catal Hayuk. It dates to 7500 b.c.e. It falls in the general Mesolithic Age if you were to consider it to be a measure of Time Period as opposed to Technology level, however we consider this site to be representative of the dawn of the Neolithic Age because of objects that are found there. Still, both are considered Stone Age. It's Technological Level is determined because of the following criteria being present among the artifacts found:

Stone tools? Check!
Baskets? Check!

Therefore it is at least Paleolithic Age.

Bows? Check!
Basic Watercraft? Check!

Therefore it is at least Mesolithic Age.

Pottery? Check!
Animal Husbandry? Check!
Wheel? Check!
Large Settlements? Check!
Architecture? Check!
Monuments? Check!

Therefore it is Neolithic Age.

Archaeology currently recognizes, at least, that different civilizations advanced at different times. (See the Synoptic Table of Principal Old World Prehistoric Cultures for an example of how Time Period are relative and why Epochs or Ages are used to denote Stages of Development rather than Time Period). China did not evolve at the same level concurrent to the Sumerians in the same time period. China was at the Neolithic Era when Sumeria was at the Bronze Era, both at 2000 b.c.e. Neither did the Greeks evolve at the same level concurrent to the Europeans. The Greeks were at the Iron Age when the Europeans were still in the Copper Age at 50 b.c.e.

However, this example of Catal Hayuk demonstrates the problem of this system. The recovered artifacts from that dig fits the checklist for Neolithic Age and doesn't fit the checklist for the Copper Age, so we exclude the possibility that they could have been more advanced technologically than the Neolithic Age.

Take the Modern United States for yet another example.

Can you find Pottery in the U.S.? What about examples of the domesticated use of Animals? Is the Wheel present and used? Are there any large Settlements? Is there a use of Architecture? Are there Monuments? Well then, the U.S. must have been at a Neolithic Technological level then! That's not quite true. However, without the discovery of artifacts that denote a higher level of Technological advancement, we would remain cataloged by future Archaeologists as Neolithic, especially if the areas that were excavated were of Native American or Quaker sites where Iron Age artifacts or beyond might be rare or non-existent. After a few studies, the categorization of the U.S. as a Neolithic civilization would become considered to be Authoritative. It would not be questioned, and any findings to the contrary would be dismissed outright or vehemently discredited before being disproved.

And that is the problem. The cataloging of existent artifacts determines the Technological level of an ancient culture, and this becomes sacrosanct and written into stone. The absence of what we consider to be more advanced Technologies eliminates the ability to change that categorization if ever discoveries were made that were contrary to that belief. It also dismisses the possibility that just because it fits into a convenient category that all of the technologies possessed by that civilization are exclusive to that category.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus
We now have optical Vinyl Record Players that do not come in contact with the Vinyl Record, and providing an accurate waveform without noise or degradation of the recording, while Digital recording takes snapshots of the Analog signal at a certain rate (44,100 times per second) with a series of steps, and is not capturing the complete sound, but approximating it. Some sounds that have very quick transitions will be distorted by Digital because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In this micro-Age example, Analog technology is able to advance beyond what Digital currently can, when scientists continue to evolve an older (outdated) Technology.

The only one outdated here is you it seems


44khz/16bit audio is old hat, we can sample at 192khz/24bit easily today. And that's ignoring you can use an even higher internal bitrate sampler, like 64bit... 24bit is only 256 times more accurate than old 44khz CD audio and 64 bit is... uh... well I cant count that high. Like a a thousand billion times more accurate?

[edit on 22-7-2009 by merka]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I have long thought there have been many "rises and falls" of numerous civilizations over many thousands of years. The one great mistake every single civilization that has come and gone, a mistake I see us repeating, is those now dead civilizations thought they were immortal.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

A hermetic seal doesn't even have anything to do with creating a vacuum. It is merely an airtight seal. When you put the lid back on a jar of peanut butter you've created a hermetic seal but there is no vacuum involved.

The OP's argument is far from hermetic.





The ancient Egyptians used nanotechnology more than 3,000 years ago even though they had no concept of the underlying nanoscience. They only knew that a particular mixture of wet sand worked really well for lubricating the ground where they pulled huge blocks of limestone to build the pyramids.


Wet sand is technology?

www.nanotech-now.com...

[edit on 7/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
nice write up op. i think you approached your statement from a feasable and well centered viewpoint. you did an excellent job of getting your point across. i really didn't have much to add but since 3 or so replies have been stupid to the point of ignoring everything you stated i figured i should do my part to get this on par.

not to mention any names (person above me and a few others) but why post in a thread if you don't even read the op? you sound stupid trying to start arguments about non issues.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Makes you really wonder about the Library of Alexandria. Humanity has such large gaps in it's history. Sometimes knowledge is preserved by another civilization who had dealings with a "fallen" civilization. Didn't the middle east preserve some Roman medical knowledge?

I'd think that sometimes science needs to reexamine some of its positions on some beliefs. Some advancements of mankind do not require a modern man to implement. But then I ask why did so many mounds get built all across the globe that can only be seen by air? Hot air balloons were with in the ability of some mound building cultures. How many modern advancements were accidents? How many ancient theories were only proved with "modern" knowledge?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by arbiture
 


Makes you really wonder about the Library of Alexandria. Humanity has such large gaps in it's history. Sometimes knowledge is preserved by another civilization who had dealings with a "fallen" civilization. Didn't the middle east preserve some Roman medical knowledge?

I'd think that sometimes science needs to reexamine some of its positions on some beliefs. Some advancements of mankind do not require a modern man to implement. But then I ask why did so many mounds get built all across the globe that can only be seen by air? Hot air balloons were with in the ability of some mound building cultures. How many modern advancements were accidents? How many ancient theories were only proved with "modern" knowledge?


Look at the drawings DaVinci did, whats to say there wasn't thinkers like that back in early history, ones that succeeded in making their visions reality. I do agree that the standard methods of dictating what era a civilization is in is too limiting, it leaves no way to even anticipate. (like the op said, whats to say that the dig wasn't in a lesser tech area?)



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Alot of artifacts wouldn't even make it to today and if they did, they'd probably be buried too deep for us to find them yet.

I came across this site a few days ago, and just the other night I saw something on the Science Channel talking about the same thing:

www.worldwithoutus.com...


Any stone structures still standing after thousands of years would finally fall to glaciers. The only intact human structures would be those originally built underground, such as the English Channel's "Chunnel".


That site is talking about how things would degrade if there were NO humans at all. I believe the degredation would be even worse throughout the years WITH humans roaming about. Coupled with the fact that if this planet was occupied before or during Neanderthal, no one would be able to record it because handwriting and symbol-making were at best remedial at that time. Things could get interpreted in ways that are alien to us.

Plus not to mention the vandalism and pillaging that would occur. Objects would get displaced throughout the years, especially by prehistoric man who doesn't know just what the hell he is seeing. This is all assuming there were civilizations around the Neanderthal and CroMag stages. If anyone was here before that, forget about it...

Also, how do we know for a fact that radiocarbon dating is entirely accurate? We could be off by thousands of years ant not know it.

Anyway, whether there were advanced civilizations or ET here before, we might not be able to find out with our current tech. Everything probably naturally decomposed by now or got broken up by the elements over the many years.


[edit on 7/22/2009 by impaired]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I love the effort you have put into your thread, very though provoking.

Though I would love for the ancients to have had some awesome early tech at their disposal even if it was accidental. I do however have a couple questions, and I will start with the following:

It seems that many Ancient theories are put forward, but how often are they physically tested. Have they tried to create the blocks from the pyramids by recreating this supposed method of concrete to see f the same composition is reached? Studying and analysing is one thing, it is a completely different thing to take the research a step further and test the theory.

I remember the Baghdad battery being tested, but they had to do a modification not present in the original jars to make them into working batteries.

So when I mention tests, I am talking controlled tests, with the same materials thought to be used in the construction of the concrete blocks.

I am not trying to say anything against the OP, I am ust trying to make better sense of a complicated subject.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join