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.

 

The 10,000 year old civilization which was more advanced than us

page: 15
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by thomas_
 


Unfortunately we do have a good idea of how much survives from civilizations - based on what we've found of previous ones.

All civilizations use stone tools and they essentially last forever. We found habitation sites going back 100,000s of thousands of years, 400,000 year old wooden javelin, etc. Even an 'eco' civilization would have had a precursor development period and unless they went back and dug everything up - we'd find it.

Usually the claim that "nothing would survive" is made by people completely ignornant of archaeology and geology...and wishing to come up with something to deflect the lack of evidence.

If you disturb the earth the soil retains the memory of that (driving a stake in or digging it up, placing a foundation on top of it or building a fire) for an extremely long time - as do sediments which contains pollen which reflects how humans modify the enivornment.

Ever wonder how long a cut gem would last?


I'm not an idiot Hans, it's pretty obvious that stone tools among other things could last practically "forever" under the appropriate circumstances but what makes you think that we as a civilization have dug up everything from the ground already?

What makes you so sure that the cost lines were where they are now?

They most certainly weren't and you know that.

Do we have any large dig in progress on the bottom of the Atlantic, Pacific, etc?

Don't think so.

71.11% of the Earth is covered by water, only 28.89% isn't. And I would guess that we haven't dig anything close to 20% of these 28.89%.

Our civilization is still discovering animal life forms that are right on the surface of the earth, so thinking that we know everything that is bellow water and the ground is not only pretentious but ignorant.

Besides dating things based on their context (environment) is pretty much just making an assumption, a best guess based on what we think we know and take as correct.

And since we only think that we fully understand things on a chemical level any chemical analysis dating could very well be off in a margin that is not acceptable.

Radiometric dating error margin gets exponential when you deal with large time frames, so do others.

So in the very end when it comes to really large time frames all we do is guess period.




posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
One thing to remember is rust forms on metals with Iron in them, so where is all the ancient civilization advance non-rustable metals? Our buildings might not be here millions of years from now, but our titanium, carbon, gold, plutonium, plastic etc based products will be.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


At best they might be, nothing else.

Things would only remain if the environment and conditions don't change too much and remain more or less as we know it.

Do we really know what happens if a solar storm hits Earth with all it's glory and doom?

We have at best a guess of what might happen, which is pretty much nothing.

Everything in nature can mutate in a chemical level under the right conditions. So again this argument of that "x stuff would remain" it's just talk from people that don't want to see the big picture.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   


I'm not an idiot Hans,


Hans: that appears to be your opinion yes




it's pretty obvious that stone tools among other things could last practically "forever" under the appropriate circumstances but what makes you think that we as a civilization have dug up everything from the ground already?


Hans: Did anyone say we have? Until we do an unknown and unfound item remains ‘speculation’.




What makes you so sure that the cost lines were where they are now?


Hans: ‘cost’ lines? Sorry don’t know what you are referring too, oh do you mean coast lines? Yes they go up and down




Do we have any large dig in progress on the bottom of the Atlantic, Pacific, etc?


Hans: Do you? Nope didn’t think so, so there could be something or they could be nothing. Oddly things at sea tend to get washed ashore.




71.11% of the Earth is covered by water, only 28.89% isn't. And I would guess that we haven't dig anything close to 20% of these 28.89%.


Hans: Yep, and so far we haven’t found anything that shows us there were unknown ancient civilizations, we MIGHT find something in future but for now we have nothing. Not having found something doesn't mean it exists!




Our civilization is still discovering animal life forms that are right on the surface of the earth, so thinking that we know everything that is bellow water and the ground is not only pretentious but ignorant.


Hans: Imagining that in the areas we don’t know about there MUST be proof of lost ancient civilizations is pretty silly. Why not base what we know on what we have and leave the rest to speculation?





Besides dating things based on their context (environment) is pretty much just making an assumption, a best guess based on what we think we know and take as correct.


Hans: Comparative analysis gives one a clue as to the relative age. I know that archaeologists will be deeply hurt that they don't have your confidence.




And since we only think that we fully understand things on a chemical level any chemical analysis dating could very well be off in a margin that is not acceptable.


Hans: Oh my you appear to be absolutists – we can’t know everything in complete and absolute detail therefore we know nothing….except for your opinion that unknown ancient civilization MUST exist.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Right, there would many mega tons of material left over, especially from an advanced civilization. If you go to the middle east and walk around you find the ground covered with plastic bags, glass and pottery shards ....trash from 10,000 plus years of civilizations



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thomas_
 





Everything in nature can mutate in a chemical level under the right conditions. So again this argument of that "x stuff would remain" it's just talk from people that don't want to see the big picture.


Care to explain Thomas why we find stuff from the past? If there is nothing to find ..what is the big picture? LOL

You seem to be arguing that the lack of evidence for ancient unknown civilization is proof they exist? If you don't have evidence how do you know they exist?

Without evidence the best you can do is speculate and speculation is not evidence for existence.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Oh!

And let's not forget a magic word when it comes to metals:

OXIDATION

Then you ask, what about carbon based materials?

I would say that natural enzymes are one thing that could transform them to pretty much nothing recognizable in pretty short amount of time.

Plastics you say?

Are you serious, that would turn to nothing with pretty much only heat.

Once again I reinforce it: "Nothing in nature is permanet or lasts forever, everything is mutable"



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thomas_
 


Oxidation - requires oxgyen

Wooden javelins survived for 400,000 years

400,000 year old javelins

How do stone tools oxidize? Do fossils oxidize? Obviously not.

Time will destroy all materials ultimately but within in the time frame things do survive.

If nothing survives Thomas how do you know ancient unknown civilizations exist?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
concerning the indians, that was harsh...have you ever considered that the only images you have in your mind of native americans are the ones that were produced after your ancestors betrayed, murdered and sent the survivors to live in teepee's in the wilderness.

they already had cities and villages, you are living in them now.

Unless native Americans emmigrated to Sweden some 500+ years ago, I find that highly unlikely

I'm not an American.

I'm also at a complete loss as to what was "harsh"?
I only said there where indians there at the time specified. I think even the indians themselves would disagree with you about it being a french city when their ancestors where, as you said, living in teepees there.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by merka]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   


Hans: that appears to be your opinion yes


You're funny man Hans, kudos for your sense of humor




Hans: Did anyone say we have? Until we do an unknown and unfound item remains ‘speculation’.


I agree but that doesn't make what we have and know as "THE LAW", and certainly not enough to refute or dismiss others ideas that you can't disprove.



Hans: ‘cost’ lines? Sorry don’t know what you are referring too, oh do you mean coast lines? Yes they go up and down


Bom eu tentei escrever em inglês mas você por sua vez resolveu pagar de otário corrigindo um mero erro imbecil. Isso demonstra claramente que a sua resposta é falha e no mínimo incompleta.

Bom ao menos você já sabe que elas mudam, já é um começo. Continue assim!




Hans: Do you? Nope didn’t think so, so there could be something or they could be nothing. Oddly things at sea tend to get washed ashore.


Didn't knew that Yonaguni was washed ashore, I'll have to check that.



Hans: Yep, and so far we haven’t found anything that shows us there were unknown ancient civilizations, we MIGHT find something in future but for now we have nothing. Not having found something doesn't mean it exists!


Agreed. But so far we haven't found anything to disprove it either, or even explain certain facts that we already know about. So if the possibility still exists the questioning still valid don't you think?



Hans: Imagining that in the areas we don’t know about there MUST be proof of lost ancient civilizations is pretty silly. Why not base what we know on what we have and leave the rest to speculation?


No body is saying that there are proofs of ancient civilizations in areas that we don't know about. All I'm saying is that it COULD be proofs of ancient civilizations in areas that we don't know about.

The possibility of not having them is exactly the same as having them, which is enough to keep some of us open for possibilities.



Hans: Comparative analysis gives one a clue as to the relative age. I know that archaeologists will be deeply hurt that they don't have your confidence.


This is kinda of a childish comment. Where is the part where you prove my point my point as being completely wrong?

As a side note: I really don't care about what archeologists with belly button syndrome think at all. And I'm not saying that they are wrong to being with, only that they could be. As many of them were in the past.



Hans: Oh my you appear to be absolutists – we can’t know everything in complete and absolute detail therefore we know nothing….except for your opinion that unknown ancient civilization MUST exist.


What? hahahaha!

All I'm saying is that we can't discard possibilities based on a knowledge that is not complete and certainly limited.

But if you think we already found all of the ancient civilizations that's you're right and I won't argue. Personally I'm pretty sure that we didn't and we are still finding them till today.

So I would say you're are the one talking in absolutes here.

Closing your mind to stuff is just another form of ignorance.





[edit on 4-4-2009 by thomas_]

[edit on 4-4-2009 by thomas_]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 




Oxidation - requires oxgyen


Yes it does, you can find oxygen in the soil too. And in whole lot of different places in different proportions. Not to mention that there are thousands of other factors that can vanish with a piece of metal.



Wooden javelins survived for 400,000 years

400,000 year old javelins


Impressive!

But do we have all of the wooden javelins from 400,000 years ago?

Don't think so. So generalizing stuff like that is just a mistake, conditions and circumstances change from place to place. So applying that to everything as a basis is just wrong.


How do stone tools oxidize? Do fossils oxidize? Obviously not.


Do you ever wondered how stones are formed?

Answer that and you have a good share of your answer.

But Microbial corrosion could be another option, among others.

If nature makes it, it can destroy (decompose) it and re-utilize it. That's a fact.


Time will destroy all materials ultimately but within in the time frame things do survive.


For sure, but that's not the point. The point is that we still have far too many places to cover to be able to jump into a conclusion and say "Ok there never was a ancient civilization with advanced technology on the face of this earth."


If nothing survives Thomas how do you know ancient unknown civilizations exist?


You're absolutely right, we simply don't.

But that goes back to the original question.

Do we have every piece of soil and sea covered yet?

Just because we might not have evidences, or the evidences that we have are taken as pure Sci-Fi it doesn't mean that they couldn't ever existed.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   


I agree but that doesn't make what we have and know as "THE LAW", and certainly not enough to refute or dismiss others ideas that you can't disprove.


Hans: Who said it was the law? Its very simple Thomas we don’t evidence of unknown civilizations

Okay? We firm on that concept now? LOL

1. If we don’t have evidence of them that means
2. We don’t have evidence for them
3. That means
4. They either don’t exist
Or
5. We haven’t found evidence of them
6. They might exist but at this point we don’t know

Why are you having such a hard time with this concept? Go thru the numbered items, read them slowly, get an adult to help you




Bom eu tentei escrever em inglês mas você por sua vez resolveu pagar de otário corrigindo um mero erro imbecil. Isso demostra claramente que a sua resposta é falha e no mínimo incompleta.


Hans: I wasn’t born in a english speaking country either




Didn't knew that Yonaguni was washed ashore, I'll have to check that.


Hans: Items from off shore tend to move in the direction of wave movement. Simple science, that is why sea shells, pottery shards, stone tools and coins show up. Yonaguni is a rock don’t think it will move




Agreed. But so far we haven't found anything to disprove it either,


Hans: Ah Thomas that is classic error of trying to prove a negative. So tell me how would we find something that would disprove that ancient unknown civilizations don’t exist? Be specific! LOL




or even explain certain facts that we already know about.

Hans: Such as? I suspect I'll get back a flood of fringe webpage nonsense




So if the possibility still exists the questioning still valid don't you think?


Hans: The question is also valid but the answer is speculation until evidence is found




No body is saying that there are proofs of ancient civilizations in areas that we don't know about. All I'm saying is that it COULD be proofs of ancient civilizations in areas that we don't know about.


Hans: Yes that is called un-evidenced speculation which has been my point all along




The possibility of not having them is exactly the same as having them,


Hans: sorry that doesn’t make much sense




which is enough to keep some of us open for possibilities.


Hans: Speculation is always open what is your point?




This is a childish reply, don't you have something interesting that proves my point as being completely wrong?


Hans: It was a childish question





All I'm saying is that we can't discard possibilities based on a knowledge that is not complete and certainly limited.


Hans: No one has ever said that – you seem to be arguing with no one about nothing – who is discarding possibilities? If I point out we have no evidence for these lost civilization that doesn’t discard the possibility we will find something in the fuure - what is it about that concept you cannot seem to grasp?




But if you think we already found all of the ancient civilizations that's you're right and I won't argue.


Hans: Ah Thomas I said no such thing, stop making stuff up, I said (repeatedly) we have no evidence for unknown ancient civilizations – why do you find that so hard to understand.




So I would say you're are the one talking in absolutes here.


Hans: Not at all you don’t seem to even understand what we are talking about




Closing your mind to stuff is just another form of ignorance.


Hans: Thomas do you even known what we are talking about?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


There is in fact Xtrozero again within the Sanskrit tradition, which I am keep telling people to take more seriously because it is more evidence rich than any other tradition or any myth of Atlantis etc. There is hard evidence for it(advanced materials) and soft evidence for it(advanced knowledge)

The Sanskrit tradition were manufacturing on an industrial scale steel and zinc as early as 500BCE(conservative dates). i.e., they were not in an iron age - but a steel age. Their steel is the best quality steel in existence even by 21st century standards. Their metallurgical techniques in developing high quality iron and steel are still unknown. Modern studies have shown that their steel called "wootz steel"contains carbon nanotubes:


Steel

India has been reputed for its iron and steel since Greek and Roman times with the earliest reported finds of high-carbon steels in the world coming from the early Christian era, while Greek accounts report the manufacture of steel in India by the crucible process. Wootz is the anglicized version of ukku in the languages of the states of Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, a term denoting steel. Literary accounts suggest that steel from the southern part of the Indian subcontinent was exported to Europe, China, the Arab world and the Middle East. In the 12th century the Arab Idrisi says ‘The Hindus excel in the manufacture of iron. It is impossible to find anything to surpass the edge from Indian steel’.

Studies on Wootz indicate that it was an ultra-high carbon steel with between 1-2% carbon and was believed to have been used to fashion Damascus blades with a watered steel pattern (Srinivasan and Griffiths 1997). Experimental reconstructions by Wadsworth and Sherby in the 1980’s have demonstrated that ultra-high carbon steels with about 1.5% C can be used to simulate blades and that these exhibit fascinating superplastic properties. Superplasticity is a remarkable phenomenon which allows a material to change its external shape to a very great extent without changing within.

A description from the Crusades of the Damascus blades is as follows: ‘One blow of a Damascus sword would cleave a European helmet without turning the edge or cut through a silk handkerchief drawn across it’. One sixth century writer describes blades as having a water pattern whose ‘wavy streaks are glistening-it is like a pond on whose surface the wind is gliding’.

Wootz steel also played an important role in the development of metallurgy. Michael Faraday, the greatest experimenter of all times, tried to duplicatethe steel by alloying iron with a variety of metallic additions including noble metals but failed. As he was the son of a blacksmith the extraordinary properties of Wootz steel must have fascinated him. His failure had an unexpected and fortunate outcome as it marked the beginning of alloy steel making. Wootz has been a prime motivating force in the development of metallurgical science and the study of micro-structures. Although iron and steel had been used for thousands of years the role of carbon in steel as the dominant element was found only in 1774 by Tobern Bergman and was due to the efforts of Europeans to unravel the mysteries of Wootz. Similarly the textured Damascus steel was one of the earliest materials to be examined by the microscope. British, French and Russian metallography developed largely due to the quest to document this structure. Wootz was an ‘advanced material’ of the ancient world used in three continents for well over a millennium. Neither its geographic sway nor its historic dominance is likely to be equalled by advanced materials of our era.
www.tf.uni-kiel.de...



There is actually anti-corrosion iron techology which has not been replicated as of yet and it was common knowledge of Sanskrit metallurgy, the techniques are still used by crafts from the Indian metallurgical tradition.



Following the “Beacon”
When viewed from a nonscientific standpoint, the Delhi Iron Pillar’s ability to resist corrosion has often been called a “mystery.” Balasubramaniam is quick to dismiss this response. “There is nothing mysterious about the iron pillar,” he says. “The resistance to atmospheric corrosion is due to the presence of a relatively high amount of phosphorus in the pillar. The remarkable corrosion resistance can be understood by applying the basic principles of corrosion research.” He adds that the direct reduction technique used to produce the iron is no mystery, either. “The ancient Indian ironmaking technology is well-known,” he says. The established scientific facts notwithstanding, Balasubramaniam concedes that one feature of the pillar is difficult to explain. “There is one aspect that is not well-understood and this may be called a mystery, in one sense,” he says. “This is the method by which the iron lumps were forge-welded to produce the massive six-tonne structure.”

Mystery or not, the Delhi Iron Pillar serves as a guidepost for metallurgists in the 21st century and beyond, asserts Balasubramaniam. In fact, just as a seminar at RPI inspired him to study the pillar, he hopes that his research will motivate others to explore the potential uses of phosphorus-containing iron. “There are so many wonderful options available with phosphoric irons,” he concludes, adding that the Iron-Phosphorus phase diagram deserves as much attention as the more popular Iron-Carbon phase diagram. “There is an exciting future in developing phosphoric irons, particularly for corrosion scientists and engineers.7 The beacon of light showing the way to the future is the Delhi Iron Pillar, with its tested proof of corrosion resistance.”


Another article on it

www.inae.org...

Summary:

* Nanotechnology steel
* Corrosion-proof iron
* Zinc

All of this advanced production and materials technology before the common era.

I really don't see how the existence of an ancient advanced civilisation is a mystery anymore. It it curious that so much knowledge and technology of the Sanskrit tradition is post 21st century

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Still pushing the propaganda I see Indigo

So an iron pillar erected in the fifth century is proof of ancient nanotechnology steel?

Wootz steel developed in India/Sri Lanka in or around 300 BC probably based on techniques developed by the Chinese.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


You talk a lot of BS and you're good it, i'll give you that.

No, that particular pillar was not erected in the 5th century, it was erected in the 4th century and there other pillars all over India with the same anti-corrosion technology. It is interesting how you completely overlook something as amazing as anti-corrosion of pure iron(98% iron) and ancient steel using nanotechnology. It's clear for everyone here to see you're not even considering this evidence. As another poster said you need to get out of your shell and stick your neck out and see.

I have no idea where you got the "probably Chinese technology" unless your're Chinese yourself and feel a bit undermined that the Indians were creating steel and zinc. I don't want to start an India vs China war, but it's pretty clear Chinese culture was heavily domainted by India in the past. We know that Shaolin Kung Fu was founded by an Indian and taken to India. We know the oldest martial arts is South Indian. And we know China was taken over by Buddhism. And we know that Chinese Medicine is largely based on Indian Tantra.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   


Hans: Who said it was the law? Its very simple Thomas we don’t evidence of unknown civilizations

Okay? We firm on that concept now? LOL

1. If we don’t have evidence of them that means
2. We don’t have evidence for them
3. That means
4. They either don’t exist
Or
5. We haven’t found evidence of them
6. They might exist but at this point we don’t know

Why are you having such a hard time with this concept? Go thru the numbered items, read them slowly, get an adult to help you


Thanks for the step by step explanation it really helped me to understand that you do recognize the fact that you don't know and it could be.

Sweet!



Hans: I wasn’t born in a english speaking country either


So what's the reason for the nitpicking with a obvious typo?

You more then anyone else should have a lower threshold for those, especially since you've only managed to find one in a whole post.

This sorts of things are the ones that make things turn to a personal side. I never tried to offend you before and I hate when people try to offend me without reason even if between the lines.



Hans: Items from off shore tend to move in the direction of wave movement. Simple science, that is why sea shells, pottery shards, stone tools and coins show up. Yonaguni is a rock don’t think it will move


Exactly. So how would apply that to large structures?

You simply can't.



Hans: Ah Thomas that is classic error of trying to prove a negative. So tell me how would we find something that would disprove that ancient unknown civilizations don’t exist? Be specific! LOL


You really decided to be anal today don't you?

I'm not trying to prove or disprove the existence of anything, all I'm saying there is a possibility. Is that too much for you to digest?



Hans: Such as? I suspect I'll get back a flood of fringe webpage nonsense


Such as all the descriptions found in ancient texts. There are many and since you're a smart man you probably know a good share of them.



Hans: The question is also valid but the answer is speculation until evidence is found


Agreed. And I never said the opposite. It is speculation but it's not a meanless one once we do find descriptions in old texts.



Hans: Yes that is called un-evidenced speculation which has been my point all along


So we agree, you just like to use fancier term to what I simply refeer to as a "possibility".



Hans: sorry that doesn’t make much sense


Why? The chances that we find one are the same chances that we don't.



Hans: Speculation is always open what is your point?


Yep, then why bother so much about it to the point of trying to do the impossible?



Hans: It was a childish question


This proves my point.



Hans: No one has ever said that – you seem to be arguing with no one about nothing – who is discarding possibilities? If I point out we have no evidence for these lost civilization that doesn’t discard the possibility we will find something in the fuure - what is it about that concept you cannot seem to grasp?


For what I've read from your posts you were pretty much trying to dimiss this whole idea. If you're not then we're on the same page.

But why all this resistence to accept the fact that you don't know and it might be?



Hans: Ah Thomas I said no such thing, stop making stuff up, I said (repeatedly) we have no evidence for unknown ancient civilizations – why do you find that so hard to understand.


Nothing. I just don't understand why not having evidence should be the same as "it isn't possible". Besides if you find the evidence of an ancient civilization it no longer would be a unknow ancient civilization.



Hans: Not at all you don’t seem to even understand what we are talking about


Right, right....

[edit on 4-4-2009 by thomas_]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   


Hans: Thomas do you even known what we are talking about?


It doesn't matter anymore the original subject was forgotten right on the first pages as usual.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   


You talk a lot of BS and you're good it, i'll give you that.


Hans: You’re the one creating an entire imaginary civilization




No, that particular pillar was not erected in the 5th century, it was erected in the 4th century and there other pillars all over India with the same anti-corrosion technology.


Hans: It is thought to have been erected Chandragupta II Vikramaditya (375 –414 AD) we don’t know when in his reign he did this so the correct answer would be either 4th or 5th century




It is interesting how you completely overlook something as amazing as anti-corrosion of pure iron(98% iron) and ancient steel using nanotechnology.


Hans: Ah Indigo, the pillar was made by HAND hammering disc of metal together, they used a technique of forge welding. Oh and I've seen the pillar in Delhi - you can still see the hammer marks in the right light

en.wikipedia.org...

Now see you’ve been caught making stuff up because you strayed in the real world.

So why are saying “nanotechnology” when it was beaten together with hammers?




It's clear for everyone here to see you're not even considering this evidence.


Hans: sure I considered your Iron pillar evidence and have shown it was wrong –




I have no idea where you got the "probably Chinese technology" unless your're Chinese yourself and feel a bit undermined that the Indians were creating steel and zinc.


Hans: Nope not Chinese, if you’re not familiar with Chinese technology I recommend you do some reading




I don't want to start an India vs China war, but its pretty clear Chinese culture was heavily domainted by India in the past.


Hans: I don’t think so, they tended to share with China being the leader in many technological fields.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Hans: Ah Indigo, the pillar was made by HAND hammering disc of metal together, they used a technique of forge welding. Oh and I've seen the pillar in Delhi - you can still see the hammer marks in the right light

en.wikipedia.org...


Those are not hammer mark, they are the impact of a cannon ball that was shot at it by an invading Mughal king in attempt to knock it down.

I use Wikipedia as a prelimary source, but not as my only source. Look at what experts are saying they cannot explain how this is made, this has been studied by the best of corrosion experts in the world, it is considered a mystery of metallurgy and it has not been explained:

I cited one expert above:


Following the “Beacon”
When viewed from a nonscientific standpoint, the Delhi Iron Pillar’s ability to resist corrosion has often been called a “mystery.” Balasubramaniam is quick to dismiss this response. “There is nothing mysterious about the iron pillar,” he says. “The resistance to atmospheric corrosion is due to the presence of a relatively high amount of phosphorus in the pillar. The remarkable corrosion resistance can be understood by applying the basic principles of corrosion research.” He adds that the direct reduction technique used to produce the iron is no mystery, either. “The ancient Indian ironmaking technology is well-known,” he says. The established scientific facts notwithstanding, Balasubramaniam concedes that one feature of the pillar is difficult to explain. “There is one aspect that is not well-understood and this may be called a mystery, in one sense,” he says. “This is the method by which the iron lumps were forge-welded to produce the massive six-tonne structure.”

Mystery or not, the Delhi Iron Pillar serves as a guidepost for metallurgists in the 21st century and beyond, asserts Balasubramaniam. In fact, just as a seminar at RPI inspired him to study the pillar, he hopes that his research will motivate others to explore the potential uses of phosphorus-containing iron. “There are so many wonderful options available with phosphoric irons,” he concludes, adding that the Iron-Phosphorus phase diagram deserves as much attention as the more popular Iron-Carbon phase diagram. “There is an exciting future in developing phosphoric irons, particularly for corrosion scientists and engineers.7 The beacon of light showing the way to the future is the Delhi Iron Pillar, with its tested proof of corrosion resistance.”


Did you note this expert is saying this is post-21st century technology? No you probably didn't. That is why I've emboldened and underlined it for you.


So why are saying “nanotechnology” when it was beaten together with hammers?


Read the information provided to you again. When did I say that the iron is using nanotechnology? I said the steel was using nanotechology. I even separated the two in my summary.

What the readers here will see, as well as in the other topic, you are not reading anything people are providing you when you ask for evidence. You will lost credibility very quickly.



Hans: sure I considered your Iron pillar evidence and have shown it was wrong –


No you didn't. You did not at all acknowledge that this is pure iron and it has not corroded in 1600 years, a technology we do not have. Like I said before you're being exceedng ignorant on a level I have not seen even on ATS.




Hans: I don’t think so, they tended to share with China being the leader in many technological fields.


I know about China contributions in technology. I am not invalidating them at all, but you certainly are invalidating India's technology. China was culturally dominated by India this is a well known fact, and that is all I was demonstrating. Anyway this point is irrelevant to this discussion.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   


Those are not hammer mark, they are the impact of a cannon ball that was shot at it by an invading Mughal king in attempt to knock it down.


Hans: Sorry been there, seen the marks, you are again making stuff up, forge welding is not the technique of a super civilization - why would they use guys beating it was hammer?

www.iupac.org...

Forge welding was the process used to manufacture the pillar. Balasubramaniam says that approximately 40- to 50-lb (18- to 23-kg) lumps of iron served as the raw materials. “Forge welding is an operation in which iron lumps were joined together by forging them in the hot state such that fusion is obtained between them,”




he explains.te this expert is saying this is post-21st century technology? No you probably didn't. That is why I've emboldened and underlined it for you.



Mystery or not, the Delhi Iron Pillar serves as a guidepost for metallurgists in the 21st century and beyond, asserts Balasubramaniam. In fact, just as a seminar at RPI inspired him to study the pillar, he hopes that his research will motivate others to explore the potential uses of phosphorus-containing iron. “There are so many wonderful options available with phosphoric irons


Balasubramaniam cautions that the Delhi Iron Pillar does rust, but he adds that the passive rust is so protective and thin that it keeps the occurrence—and appearance—of corrosion at a minimum.

Zinc?

Since the first such analysis in 1912,2 researchers have estimated that the pillar’s average composition is 0.15% carbon, 0.25% phosphorus, 0.005% sulfur, 0.05% silicon, 0.02% nitrogen, 0.05% manganese, 0.03% copper, 0.05% nickel, and the balance iron.3 “Interestingly, a sample of Delhi pillar iron was subjected to microprobe analysis in order to determine the composition of the elements manganese, chromium, copper, and nickel in the near-surface regions,” says Balasubramaniam. “It was found that the composition of copper [0.05%], nickel [0.05%], manganese [0.07%], and chromium [nil] was uniform through several millimeters into the sample from the surface.”

You claimed it was made by

Summary:

* Nanotechnology steel
* Corrosion-proof iron
* Zinc

Your own source contradicts you, it would seem you made up the nanotechnology, the corrosion proof and the zinc. So Indigo why are you doing that?




Read the information provided to you again. When did I say that the iron is using nanotechnology? I said the steel was using nanotechology. I even separated the two in my summary.


You said so in your summary after linking to page on the pillar




No you didn't. You did not at all acknowledge that this is pure iron and it has not corroded in 1600 years, a technology we do not have. Like I said before you're being exceedng ignorant on a level I have not seen even on ATS.


Hans: It isn’t ‘pure; iron your own source so states. It has impurities - or do you deny your own source?




I know about China contributions in technology. I am not invalidating them at all, but you certainly are invalidating India's technology.


Hans: No I’m supporting the Real Indian technology from your attempts to say it was created by a unknown super civilization



China was culturally dominated by India this is a well known fact, and that is all I was demonstrating. Anyway this point is irrelevant to this discussion.


Hans: No its important to show your level of irrational thought and failure to research.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join