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.

 

Pyramid = Electric Generator

page: 8
68
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mckeesport
 


Thank you for posting those, they are the ones I am familiar with.

Would love to watch them again!




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Why do we find so many tools and structures by the Egyptians but we never find any of this "high tech" stuff they were supposed to have had?
I know people like to point to the Baghdad Battery but there are a few things wrong with that besides the fact that it is not a battery. But even if it was
1. It was in Baghdad, not Egypt
2. It was made after year zero



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I was watching the news today talk about the Titanic. It was about how they are auctioning off stuff from the ship that was on the ocean floor around the wreck.

The spoke of how they haven't taken anything out of the ship itself because it is sacred ground. Then this gentleman said the ship is disintegrating so rapidly...we may not be able to recognize it soon.

So if the Tianic can disappear ( as he put it) in say 100 to 200 years.....what would be left after 2000? Or more?
edit on 1-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink

So if the Tianic can disappear ( as he put it) in say 100 to 200 years.....what would be left after 2000? Or more?


A hunk of rust and a movie with Leo DiCaprio



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rendier

While I agree that there is alot of pseudo-science going on, which is mostly because of lack of higher education (read: university level), dismissing a theory because there aren't any experts in the field agreeing or investigating it seems rather shallow.


A lack of experts means that most of the information is most likely not very useful, especially with a topic like this where it is so easy to go off the proverbial deep end of speculation. Many people on here will believe anything that is in a Youtube video, while calling any academic source unreliable.


For starters, as far as I'm aware, one does not become an archeologist/historical expert/... overnight. It takes years of education which ultimately shapes you into what the field conciders an expert. It's no secret that a certain bias comes with education, that bias being the acceptance of certain truths in your specific field of education.


The same can be said for anybody. If you believe in ideas like this you will also have a bias against the mainstream community that does not agree. The difference is that academics can't really go around spewing "facts" without the evidence to back them up. The conclusions academics make are put under just as much scrutiny as these ideas, but academics are accepted more than these, should I believe that the non-experts are right and the experts are wrong?


If you study physics, you'll have to learn the flow of currents, how forces work and so on. Up to this day, we still can't explain alot of things (Read: string theory) meaning that our current model of physics is wrong/needs adjustments. Yet every current physicist has been educated using this as the very foundation. It requires out-of-the-box thinking to solve mysteries which are the foundation of your education, and not many people are capable of doing so.

On top of this, simply because these truths gets accepted during the education (Pyramids were related to the Pharaoh's and their after-life), trying to refute them after your education could cause a serious dent in your credibility amongst peers in your field of work, because all of them have too fallen under the same education. This is especially true with history, where there's already a fear of getting associated with certain ideas/theories as it could crush your future carreer.


I agree 100% that there are problems in areas of science, such as physics. I personally think that the basic assumptions of physics are in need of massive adjustments. Like I said before though, we just do what we can to explain what we see. It is also a shame that science is politicized, as any kind of politics in science creates the current situation where one's career can be in jeopardy just because they want to investigate a subject. It would seem we would want scientists to examine every theory by it's own merits, as this is the only way to real truth.


I think alot of people have the idea that when people graduate from university/college, they become actively engaged in the shaping and evolution of their respective fields, which simply is not the case; the majority of people end up working the equivalent of a deskjob in their fields. (Take what you learn in school and apply it in a commercial situation) So the few people who do get the chance to have enough spare time, money and interest for "free" research are likely not too keen on risking their personal carreer following "out there"-theories, regardless of those theories offering a perfectly viable solution to problems in the current model.


Again, I agree. Sometimes people take those deskjobs for financial reasons, or because they have no other choice. It is a terrible shame that it is considered risky to study "out-there" theories. I don't think any topic should be off limits, but I have yet to see very much reliable evidence about these theories, and the fact that no one is reproducing these ideas, in this day and age, strongly suggests that they are grossly wrong. Science = reproduction of experiments. When someone shows how this is possible, I will say that the Egyptians might have had it.


Don't get me wrong, I, as much as you, would love for someone with a degree in ancient history come here and spew facts regarding the posted "evidence", but I will never dismiss a theory due to lack of support from high-players in the respective field.


That is a great attitude, but you should also use your critical thinking when choosing to believe it or not. If no one can SHOW how this is possible, and instead everyone just SAYS it is, then the idea is more than likely bunk. Like I said, if we can't reproduce it, even with our advanced technology, then what makes you think it existed 5,000 years ago?

Call me close minded, but if you are just referencing Youtube videos or the History channel, it's not enough for me to believe
edit on 1-4-2012 by UltraDOSEcious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Thank you to the mod that at least attempted to back up the tomb theory with facts, but I would like to point out to him and Karen(random number)..that it is still just circumstantial evidence..the same I have provided you with.

To the guy/gal that asked if I (we) believe that every professional in the mainstream is lying to us, no I do not. You are not taking into account that those scholars are only repeating what they have been taught...just like our doctors go on prescribing us things that their texts books tell them, that were wrote by the Pharma companies
also the fact that many may have different opinions but do not want to possibly discredit them selves by going against the mainstream. I know first hand of many professionals in this predicament.

As for "where are the technologies that ran from electric", once again, I don't know, we may never know! Does anyone actually know how long it takes for certain metals to degrade? Or if they used metals at all?

To anyone who disagrees that machines, or tools yet undisclosed to us, were used on the pyramids, I ask you to conduct your own experiment with hammers, chisels and whatever else the history books say they had, and see if you can produce the same ballistic evidence left on the stones.

Sorry I haven't been around to keep this thread in logical check




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
this is more where I was going with that:


Ground water DOESN'T produce static charge. If you had ionically pure non-conductive water, running over something totally insoluble with a significant difference in electronegativity, I dunno, maybe you could pull it off.

But outside a lab, water's almost always got some ionic contamination. That will make it somewhat to very conductive, depending on the amount. And that will be it for static accumulation. Suspended as droplets, you bet - you're using the air as insulation. Conductive water flowing through earth - no.

Next, even if you had distilled water flowing through teflon rock formations...what's the effect of plopping a pointy non-conductive rock on top of it? Eh, not much. I'm not seeing the magic property here.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DonVoigt
It would be interesting to see if this is possible on some small scale replica in a labtatory so that the electricty output can be measured


the pyramid had other types of component stones in various notches and probably some kind of technological equipment in specific locations. There are interesting features such as the notches in the Grand Gallery/staircase thingy (they contained the component stones and are described in I think Sitchin's book Wars of Gods and Men), the rough edged passageway from a lower shaft to the bottom of the Gallery/staircase thiny (the shaft appears unlike any other in the Great Pyramid almost melted. that is how Marduk's family got him out after being sealed inside as a punishment), the stones at the opening of the King's Chamber could be opened with a rope and pulleys (hardly something found in a crypt) and the huge angled granite stones forming resonance chambers over top of it all. I can't say as I think it can be scaled down although I'd love to see something like that. I fully support free energy



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


we really do believe we are at the top of the intellectual ladder don't we?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by UltraDOSEcious
 


Don't get me wrong, I think there is A LOT we don't know about past civilizations, but wireless elctricity in ancient Egypt? It's hard to swallow. I think dinosaurs had a civilization, but since I have no evidence it's just a fantasy.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Sorry I haven't been around to keep this thread in logical check



is that a subtle hint for me to shut up?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


No!! I've just been starring all your posts lol, I like your input...please continue


Link


Copper was the most common metal for everyday use in ancient Egypt. Copper in Egypt often contained natural arsenic. Therefore it was particularly hard. Copper ores were mined and melted in the eastern desert and in Sinai.


Home page of Link above
edit on 1-4-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 




To anyone who disagrees that machines, or tools yet undisclosed to us, were used on the pyramids, I ask you to conduct your own experiment with hammers, chisels and whatever else the history books say they had, and see if you can produce the same ballistic evidence left on the stones.

This has been done.
www.pbs.org...
edit on 1-4-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Bedlam
 


we really do believe we are at the top of the intellectual ladder don't we?



One of we works with this stuff every day. About to head into the work area to continue my systems integration shift 3 team leader duty - the mystic question of the month is why does the new UWB radar do [x] to the that other system when it's running in a certain mode? The antenna is sort of pyramidy so maybe that's it.

At any rate, you have to ask yourself, self, how much energy can ground water provide? What's the flow rate of ground water? And how much of it is there? Is there a way to convert the kinetic energy of flowing ground water to something you can use? I don't think it moves all that fast through sand, and I'm guessing because I don't know Egyptian geology but given it's a desert I'd have to think it was generally pretty deep, too. I also recall that it takes hundreds of years for rainfall to reach most aquifers, so not seeing this as a big energy source.

But let's say there's enough energy to bother dealing with - I always considered ground water to be pretty static in terms of movement, so that's a big leap, how do you foresee that pyramid magically getting that energy?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Touche! From what I just read there, although I would much rather prefer to see a video of it in action to see how laborious it would be....also, this site talks of the copper pipes the Egyptians used, there's your missing metal components for any electrical device they could have used!



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Touche! From what I just read there, although I would much rather prefer to see a video of it in action to see how laborious it would be...

It was hard for them because they are a few people, they did not have 100s to help cut. This was also new to them they were not ancient Egyptian stone workers with years of experience. Now you are just moving the goal post. You wanted to see the cuts replicated using tools they would have had and i showed you.



.also, this site talks of the copper pipes the Egyptians used, there's your missing metal components for any electrical device they could have used!

It takes more than a copper pipe to make a power tool. There is still no wire, no power source and more importantly no evidence of any use of electricity.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Moving the goal posts? Now your just nit-picking, I acknowledged and accepted the theory you presented!

Plus, even today you can't leave any copper unattended before the local jack the lads or the scrap come for it! Expecting any equipment to still be around after 2000 years is just a bit far fetched.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
From what I have read about the construction of the pyramids many they were filled with clays. Clays contain various metals in crystal forms. These clay crystals are like capacitors, being able to store energy. The reason that there may be deserts around the pyramids could be because they stripped the clay layer exposing the sands. They may have killed the local environment to build these things. Where clay layers were abundant and deep you do not see this desolation. They also may have purposely done this to channel the earths energy through a single point. I just notice things, I don't know if this is actually the case. They could have destroyed the clay layer to create pottery to trade for metals also.
edit on 1-4-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Bedlam
 


we really do believe we are at the top of the intellectual ladder don't we?



that's a bizzare thing to accuse someone of who is simply sharing their knowledge of something they are familiar with.
where was conceit and superiority demonstrated?
he should be commended for following the train of thought to see if actually has tracks, and providing information relevant to the discussion that most of us don't have.
knowing something doesn't make you better than anyone else, it just means you know something.
to suggest otherwise is paranoid projection.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny

Does anyone actually know how long it takes for certain metals to degrade?


yeah, apparently someone at this website claims they do....

www.ipcra.org...

"Decay

Water is related to all the different types of decay processes that are found in metal. Chemical decay occurs naturally but at a greater rate in a polluted environment. Thermal stress, inherent defects and inappropriate intervention procedures, such as shotblasting also contribute to deterioration. Extensive organic growth or soiling are a result of neglect and can cause damage. Conservation will usually involve cleaning, stabilisation and repair. Cleaning is undertaken as soiling can hide decay, open joints, fractures or other damage. Cleaning procedures can be either chemical or mechanical and should aim to retain the ‘patina’, the chemically altered layer that is only microns thick, of the original surface.
Stabilisation is a procedure used to slow down or halt decay. It may simply involve moving an object from an unsuitable environment where this is possible or it may involve the application of a treatment directly to exposed metal.
Many metals are chemically unstable and unless protected, will revert to a more stable state by combining with oxygen, sulphur, chlorine and carbon in the process known as corrosion."

etc....

how to calculate corrosion rates...

www.corrosionist.com...

atmospheric corrosion data...

www.galvanizeit.org... sion-data/
edit on 1-4-2012 by delusion because: add info




top topics



 
68
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join