Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mechanical Engineering in Ancient times

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I can be certain of this lost Vedic civilisation because I have studied its surviving texts. It is clear as daylight this is an advanced civilisation, because primitive civilisations do not write 21st century computer grammars! Primitive civilisations do not have precise and scientific systems. Primitive civilisations do not have scientific systems of medicine in which they classify eye diseases into 76 types and treat 51 of them using 125 types of fine surgical instruments. Primitive civilisations do not classify various types of microrganisms and give vivid descriptions of what they look like, and even mention machines to see them. Primitive civilisations do not measure time ranging from trillions of years for the cosmos and 10^-6 for the duration of minute particles.

Look the evidence is actually very blatant that this advanced civilisation existed. Why remain blind to it? I think it is so obvious that I am surprised that any intelligent person could doubt it when presented the evidence. Then again I am an Indigo child


[edit on 20-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



Then again I am an Indigo child


I really sympathise, dude. We can't choose our family, isn't that what they say? Damn. Maybe sometime in the future you can sue your momma? I've read the threads...indigo children are self-centred, whiny and seek attention because their moms treated them like they were better than all the other kids. Poor kids end up believing it!

I work with a boy who's 11. Last week he had a bad day. Couldn't decide whether to keep his forefinger in his butt or in his mouth. He's a bright kid...he alternated. He's diagnosed ASD, but you'll never guess what his mom says? Yup, he's an indigo child too. Are you in England? Maybe you know him?


You know what? I've decided that India really did make all that stuff. Sure they did. Sure they did. Mmmmm yeah. Don't you let any naughty people say they didn't. You know you're right and that's all that matters. Atta boy. Yeah India made everything and the stars where made for you to look at too...(steps quietly away from the thread yet again...shhhhh...)



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I saw an older post in this section so I will write the update here as it is clearly closely related:

the Ancient Studies Conference is on again (ICAS Dubai 2010) on Feb 12 and 13. The lineup is awesome and Cremo will be talking about ancient technology found around the world (Out of place artefacts). If anyone can make it to Dubai I think it is well worth it! Have a look: www.ancient-studies.org



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Kandinsky,

There really is no need to be rude and disrespectful to me personally. I could respond in kind, but then I wouldn't be any different to you. I would prefer you focus on the arguments I am presenting, than me personally.

Why do you keep claiming that India did not make all those "things" I am not entirely sure what you mean by those "those things" What things? Can you be clear about those things.

Come on even Magenus has now conceded that the Hindus were ahead of others after looking at the evidence himself. If you do not accept the Hindus had aeroplanes, robots and nukes based on the evidence presented, the least you can concede is that they were definitely ahead of others. And in fact most of science, philosophy and mathematics was developed by the Hindus.

By the way I will repeat again. I am not claiming the aeroplanes etc belonged only to the Hindus. I am talking about "ancients" in this thread, not just the Hindus. In fact I have good reason to believe that technology was not the strongest point of the Hindus, and other civilisations in ancient times specialised in it more. The Ancient Greeks are especially mentioned in Sanskrit texts for being well known for their technology. Although references to them date in the lost history of the Greeks(before 1000BCE)
I don't think only the Hindus were advanced. I think the ancients in general were very advanced.

You are trying to see nationalism where there is none. I love ancients in general. However, there is always going to be one particular ancient civilisation which is going to be ahead of others and by the centre of the world. That civilisation is the Indian civilisation. There is no doubt about it. India was the main centre of the world in ancient times. To accept what is true does not make you an Indian nationalist. I accept America is the centre of the world today, does that make me an American nationalist?

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Hey!! I warned you NOT to quote me (unless of course you refer to the EXACT quotation from what I wrote!!). This is becoming a joke.




Come on even Magenus has now conceded that the Hindus were ahead of others after looking at the evidence himself. If you do not accept the Hindus had aeroplanes, robots and nukes based on the evidence presented, the least you can concede is that they were definitely ahead of others. And in fact most of science, philosophy and mathematics was developed by the Hindus.


This IS what I wrote:




After much reading, mainly on wikipedia (my time, unlike Brahma, IS limited ) I can say that in MANY cases I agree that the ancient Hindus were ahead of others. I wouldn't go as far as handing around the word "perfect" for everything Hindu in origin though.


If you misquote me again I will sue! Honestly!

Anyway, in light of how you treat the conversation I will leave you in your dreams. Two things before I too walk away from this sorry thread.

1. Indians didn't have to migrate from their continent in the Indian Ocean to India, India itself migrated 50 million years ago. It is called continental drift, I am sure it is described in your Vedas and I am sure you will claim that some Hindu witch doctor invented it.

2. There are about 1 billion Indians today. If you can find ONE (yes, only one is enough) that cannot trace its ancestry to Africa circa 80,000-85,000 years ago then I will eat my hat (as a homage to John Rombax), sign whatever document you want attesting that I believe all this crap (yes, the wording will be as stated, "I believe all this crap") and decalre that I am your devout follower. the "catch" (you thought you were getting off easy? Think again!), you will NOT be in any way involved in the DNA testing, we will choose labs that are located in a continent neither of us lives and we will verify results by at least 2 more independent sources (labs). Game?

Of course you won't answer. You never do when cornered (there are still some of my questions that await an answer, they will remain unanswered until Vishnu assumes his latest incarnation and destroys this world). So, gloat in your dream world, post away and convince yourself about the supremacy of India. One look, not longer than 5 seconds in what India IS is testament enough (Sorry I had to go "nationalistic").

You and you can continue misquoting each other to your heart's content

Have a nice Indian day



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Congrats on being the first to make it


Don't even ask what you made. Just be happy you were the first there



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

I can say that in MANY cases I agree that the ancient Hindus were ahead of others.


You are pretty much saying the same thing
Lets not quibble over minor terms now.

If we go by available evidence of course the Hindus are ahead of others. Which other civilisation has science developed to the same level as the Hindus?

Name me the the equivalents of Sushraha, Panini, Patanjali, Kannada in ancient times.

But notice I am saying available evidence. I have already said that I believe others were just as advanced, only their records have not been found. So you cannot really blame me of any kind of nationalism. I can sue you know



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Im sure ancient civilizations had many mechanical devices. They however did not use elctronic devices. They did not use anything related to elctricity. Everything they used was through the use of human energy or natural energy and then converted to mechanical energy, (wind, running water).

If the ancient civs did in fact have electronic devices then where is the evidence?

Stories of Vimanas does not imply that man was building airplanes with a mysterious power source. I am inclined to believe that these Vimanas were UFO of that time from somewhere else. (Like the link you provided)

I do agree that older civilizations had a very clear understanding of of a technology for the time. The Antikythera box is a perfect example. But to say that they had technology comparable to ours is a but far fetched at this point. Show us something tangible which shows this technology. A part of an electronic device, a written description of how to build one, an ancient steel building? Anything?


Neccessity is indeed the mother of invention. They were able to go above and beyond in their technology with the given material because they had to. We do not. We have elctricity and giant machines to do our work.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by spinalremain]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Scientific analysis has shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you need absolutely no physical evidence to back what you strongly believe (every known religion is based on this, haven't you heard?).

So, please, don't ask questions that will spoil your experience here. You are treading down a VERY dangerous path my friend



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Maegnas
 


I don't really understand what you mean by 'one look at what India IS testament ', but if your saying that we should judge the area's past achievements due to the state it is in today then that is just sad and narrow minded. But yes, the dravidians have been proven to be close relatives of the ethiopians havent they. But there is also the folklore, which is still quite well known in southern India, of the sunk continent Kumari Kandam and Lemuria which claims to have attached Madagascar and the indian sub continent.

I doubt Indigo even quoted you let alone MISquote you. Yes that sentence really shows you are more or less admitting that ancient indians were far superior. But seriously if your that opposed to such views, then there is no need to read this thread is there? By the looks of your last post it seems more like your stroking your own ego by getting in the last word to "win" as you put it a couple of pages earlier.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Karmaverick]

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Karmaverick]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karmaverick
[ But there is also the folklore, which is still quite well known in southern India, of the sunk continent Kumari Kandam and Lemuria which claims to have attached Madagascar and the indian sub continent.

Well, Lemuria certainly never existed and the only candidate for Kumari Kandam, now that we know the ocean floor better than the Tamil did when they told this tale during the Middle Ages, is what today is called Sundaland.

Sundaland existed and sank. But it was never part of the Indian Subcontinent nor was it attached to Madagascar.

It should be said here that the entire Indo-Australian plate is bobbing up and down quite rapidly (geologically speaking.)

Especially Australia. The fact is, parts of India are sinking as we speak, so it wouldn't be surprising if India was somewhat larger in the past.

But there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Kumari Kandam existed in the way that it was claimed in the 14th Century (AD.) It was then that what we think of today as Kumari Kandam entered Tamil Literature.

Other accounts of a sunken land come from older (possibly much older) Tamil Literature, but none of these accounts use that name nor do they describe the place as a large, attached part of India.

So, given that India is today sinking (in some places) and given the length of the Tamil tradition there, it's very possible that some land has been lost and the Tamil might have recorded thusly. But as I said, not some huge continental section and not like the poem that was written in the 1300's AD.

Harte



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
It sounds plausible.

Seems to me that some time into the bronze age that all the necessary elements are there for developing working hydraulics and steam power systems. If you have sufficient metal working skill to make various bronze artifacts of relatively high quality, then the skills needed for being able to make piping and valves shouldn't be that far behind. After that, getting into what can be done water and steam using those systems shouldn't take too long as it's fairly obvious. If you know how to build a working toy like the "Hero engine", it certainly shouldn't take much to turn that into something that can do useful work by adding gears, etc. to it.

Even if they harnessed use of complex machinery, it's questionable whether or not there was an earlier unrecorded industrial age. (Lack of standardized parts and machining, etc. Although the Antikythera mechanism points to being able to make precision devices such as clockwork, there was probably some secrecy and lack of agreement for measurement that kept them from being much more widespread.) Thus ways of harnessing power from engineered systems to do work were likely to be fairly limited in use.

From the scale used in some ancient constructions, I still find it hard to believe that manpower alone did the job. However if you had some steam and hydraulic systems with application of some gearing and other clever systems of balance and mechanical advantage, with enough water and fuel to burn - putting together a huge megalith structure seems reasonably possible in a decade or so. With the power of simple small steam powered cranes and winches to move things, and by using clever pivots you could roll or walk large stones across the country with a fairly small team of men guiding each one. (Not to mention the huge advantages of steam/hydraulic/pneumatic power would offer when cutting and grinding such large stones.)

But then why weren't such engines also used for transportation earlier? Probably the lack of standards involvong parts. Custom fabrication would be harder to do where sourcing the resources need for repair are unknown. For an engine that stays in one location, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Carrying spare parts for a finicky engine that are made of valuable metals seem like they'd also invite more trouble then they'd be worth. And although an bronze-tech engine may have produced a bit of power, it's probably terribly inefficient. (Useful steam locomotives weren't built until some understanding of the condensation cycle came about that would provide decent range on a tank of water.) You'd probably need more fuel and water to make the trip than what is reasonable to carry.

The problem historians have for such ideas is a lack of sufficient evidence. As to why? I suspect such artifacts were destroyed or recycled fairly quickly after their usefulness wore out. This is because it's a lot easier to re-use metals than the process involved in dealing with raw ore. Also I wouldn't put it beyond ancient rulers to claim the work of machines as being done by men. If you were a king, wouldn't grandiose claims of human labor be more intimidating to anyone visiting your domain? So another likelyhood is that the machines and related records of construction and use were intentionally destroyed after whatever job they performed was done.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join