It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lost Wisdom of the Ancients or failure on our part?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by Tsurugi

Yep, but once the dam breaches, the sides above the water and the diversion tunnel will be around for a long nearly as long as those pesky pottery/porcelain bits.

posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:35 PM


True. Provided that:
a) you know what you're looking for

I believe that is a given.

Which? That a former concrete slab is identifiable provided you know what you are looking for? Or that they will know what they are looking for?
The former is certainly a given. The latter is not, which was my point.

Tsurugib) you look forensically

See above, no thanks to earlier archaeologists.

Also see above. Why do forensics if you dont even know you should be looking?

But you could just find it in one of the other twenty or thirty million such sites. Somehow, I don't think concrete from our time will be looked upon as a curiosity by far future archaeologists.

"That's right! Look, it's found all over the world, ok? There's nothing strange or curious about it; it's obviously a naturally occurring substance. You're free to believe in your ancient advanced culture that went 'round the planet pouring stone buildings out of bags and talking to each other using a giant invisible spiderweb of magic, but I am going to stick with science."

Harte, I don't really disagree with you about concrete and far future archaeologists. I have no idea whether they will recognize it or not(tho I hope they do).
All I am doing is saying it is possible that they will not recognize it, or know it for what it is...but they might decide they do know. I'm attempting to illustrate how easily that could hapoen. Im also attempting to point out that something similar may be taking place, on occaison, in our current time.
edit on 13/10/18 by Tsurugi because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by Hanslune
Hmmmm, really? You could be right....but I was fairly certain that the "longevity" of the concrete in a structure like a dam was centered on the fact that such deep pours of concrete can still be "curing" hundreds or thousands of years later...and the transition to brittle, crumbly crap does not begin until after curing is finished. So as long as someone is on the lookout to make sure the structure is never overly stressed, everything is fine.
But once the breakup process has begun, the curing of the newly exposed areas completes quickly, more breakage occurs, more curing sped up, etc. etc.

posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 09:40 PM

In 1813 the world 'European' view was that our planet was about 6,000 years old and that men came from a special creation event initiated by God.

2013 we know the world is now billions of years old and the evidence points to a slow evolution and development of culture, language, society etc. We have found a number of civilizations that we didn't know existed in 1813 and scores of cultures.

So I would say there is no failure - but it will take centuries more of effort to find out more about our past, often blocked by religious bigotry, scientific egos, lake of money, lack of technology but we will in the end gain a fair idea of the when and how of our rise.

Excellent point! I would further it by noting--if I may--that those 1813 European scholars were just as certain of their views as modern scholars are of theirs re: multi-billion year old Earth, gradual linear evolution, etc., and no doubt those 1813ers could defend their ideas effectively within the framework of the paradigms of that time.
Naturally, those ideas and views are no longer considered viable, they appear simplistic, baseless, and superstitious to the modern scholar from atop 200 more years of accumulated knowledge.

Carrying your excellent observation to it's end, it seems to me, would indicate that chances are good that future scholars--2213ers--will view 2013 ideas in a similar way to how 2013ers view 1813 ideas...with amused contempt. The same way, no doubt, that 1813ers viewed many of the ideas of the 1613er's.

Because what you were illustrating, I think, is the never-ending progression(provided there are no catastrophic disturbances, that is) of scientific thought. Science is a great thing--the most powerful, transformational tool mankind has acquired since way back when that Prometheus guy showed up with a Zippo--but it should be remembered that science is always moving forward, and what is incontrovertible truth today might not be shown to be absolute bunk tomorrow...but maybe the day after that, or perhaps in a year, or 10, or 200.

Conclusion: WE'RE ALL WRONG. But let's have a beer or two and I'll explain how sometimes, I am slightly less wrong than you are. XD

posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Tsurugi

Well one thing that the old scientists did have and use was the scientific method which allowed them to make such fundamental changes.

A lot of things we know now might be wrong but then again they might not. We simply won't know until the future does arrive.

Some things will probably not changes

Examples: we can read Sumerian and AE and we probably won't find that we have been doing it completely wrong - what we will find is that certain words may mean different things.

We will gain expressly more detailed information. Like GT was a suprize but it was within the realm of possibility, plausibility and probablility, that had previously been established.

We shall see

new topics

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in