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.
Originally posted by Hanslune
Copper was used a medium of 'writing'
Link to a fairly famous copper scroll
The problem is a very weak battery doesn't equal the ability to make a nuclear weapon, even if such a battery was built, which is very uncertain and thousands of years after the alleged use of such bombsedit on 29/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by owtFsink
interesting, sure it is and there are more being found as well, but in the case of the bahgdad battery it was a combination of elements that led to the findings that it could generate a small voltage.
No it isnt, a nuclear weapon but it IS telling us that these old societies DID have a greater understanding of "technology" than we previously gave them credit for...
Now listen, this isnt a dig at you personally, but...
With a mindset that assumes that current standards should not be challenged it is no wonder that it took...how many years to advance this simple technology? imagine if more people put in your effort to challenge those paradigms instead of simply accept them.
Originally posted by owtFsink
Originally posted by Harte
So you've decided to ignore the established fact that the top was sealed over with bitumen, insulating the dissimilar metals and completely ruling out the possibility of electrical generation?
Nice worldview. It turns into whatever reality you care to choose at any moment.
I prefer reality, myself.
Harte
No i didnt ignore it, it was in both the links i provided, what you ignored was the fact that it was documented that there was an iron post protruding from the bitumen (which was commonly uses to create a seal on such jars), similar to what you find on todays car batteries.
It was also shown that such jars with the copper sheeting wrapped around the iron (galvanized) posts created an electrical charge....enough for electroplating as well other applications
read the links, then tear them apart...
Originally posted by owtFsink
reply to post by Hanslune
No, your assuming that i am saying "lets go with some idea" just because it sounds good, what i am actually saying is, lets explore all other options/ideas as well, rather than just thinking, "oh, thats good enough"...
Originally posted by Hanslune
Again you appear to be having a conversation with yourself.......
So lets reset the parameters:
Were the Baghdad 'batteries' capable of producing current in the condition they were found? NO
Could with modern manupilation could they be made to produce a weak current? YES
Is this evidence the Sassanids had electrical current? NO
really......
Is this evidence that nobody stumbled on electricity in the past? NO
Originally posted by owtFsink
only because you refuse to hear a perspective other than yours...
i already addresed this in a previous post...thanks for paying attention
Hans wrote: Is this evidence the Sassanids had electrical current? NO
owtFsink wrote: also NOT evidence that they didnt...
Originally posted by owtFsink
reply to post by Harte
and it was already scientifically demonstrated that alone they are nothing, but when chained together they DO produce voltage and the more in the chain, the more voltage produced.
Originally posted by owtFsink
Is this evidence the Sassanids had electrical current? NO
also NOT evidence that they didnt...
Originally posted by Hanslune
Originally posted by aorAki
Originally posted by Harte
"Archaeologist Francis Taylor," also quoted in that article, never existed either.
Again, I've looked. But don't trust me. Find evidence of his existence and I'll eat my words.
Oh hell. I agree with your posts as a whole, but I did find this: Francis Taylor
Now I'll wait for someone to twist your words and mine. Just because I found this doesn't mean I believe in ancient nuclear wars. I don't.edit on 29-4-2012 by aorAki because: (no reason given)
Common name, wrong time period, Harte I believe meant that specific FT mentioned in the newspaper article and not FT through out history! loledit on 29/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by aorAki
Phew. That's a relief. Just shows that I didn't read the newspaper article