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.

 

Ancient Nuclear Wars and Past Civilisations

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

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 bombs
edit on 29/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


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.




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gypsygem
 


However based on what we know of that time period....where would they have gotten one and how would they have maintained it, targeted and fired it? lol



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

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.


But has noted the device as found wouldn't have generated anything


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...


Its telling us that modern men have good imaginations!


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.


Now listen, this isn't a dig at you personally, but

With a mindset set that assumes we should ignore what evidence we have and go with made up kewl stuff - just because it sounds good.........



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

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...


Please don't even imagine that I've not read everything available on the subject already.

It takes two posts to draw a current from a battery. The bitumen sealed off the copper from any possibility of contact to complete any circuit. I already said this in different words.

Hard to use a current that doesn't even exist. The design of the jar is evidence that it was not intended or used as a voltage source.

Harte



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
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"...

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)
10 Debunked Scientific Beliefs Of The Past

there are more....
edit on 30-4-2012 by owtFsink because: to add links for examples



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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"...


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

Is this evidence that nobody stumbled on electricity in the past? NO



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Again you appear to be having a conversation with yourself.......

only because you refuse to hear a perspective other than yours...


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

i already addresed this in a previous post...thanks for paying attention


Is this evidence the Sassanids had electrical current? NO

also NOT evidence that they didnt...


Is this evidence that nobody stumbled on electricity in the past? NO
really......



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by owtFsink

only because you refuse to hear a perspective other than yours...


Evidence isn't a 'perspective', you don't really get to change reality to suit yourself - unless you go into denial



i already addresed this in a previous post...thanks for paying attention


Then why do keep insisting they were 'batteries', it would appear you are not paying attention


Hans wrote: Is this evidence the Sassanids had electrical current? NO
owtFsink wrote: also NOT evidence that they didnt...


Its also NOT evidence that they rode curry flavoured unicorns





edit on 30/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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.

Except first you have to break the top open, or you can't "chain them together."
You can't even get an electrical current.

Harte
edit on 4/30/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by owtFsink

Is this evidence the Sassanids had electrical current? NO

also NOT evidence that they didnt...

Stupidity in its purest form.

Everything in the entire universe is not evidence that the Sassinids didn't have electricity from batteries, so why should this jar be any different than every single thing in all of the entirety of existence?

Harte



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

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! lol
edit on 29/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


Phew. That's a relief. Just shows that I didn't read the newspaper article



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki


Phew. That's a relief. Just shows that I didn't read the newspaper article


For your failure you must do penance: You must go to Godlikeproductions and read three threads there, completely - if you avoid brain death, please return here



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join