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

Hans,

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Normally, if somebody reads about something such as an iron pillar that is 1600 years old that has barely rusted one does not dismiss something like this. However, perhaps you cannot appreciate that a corrosion proof almost pure iron is practically impossible with normal iron technology, and no other metals even stainles steel can endure that long. So rightfully the Metallurgists have been fascinated with this pillar, which all you have done is dismissed belying your ignorance which is not shared by metallurgical experts.

Your argument that it was forge-welded is a straw man. I never said it wasn’t forge-welded. I am referring to the actual corrosion proof technology which the expert himself admits is post-21st century.

Your argument that it uses nanotechnology is another strawman and clearly shows you did not read what I said to you in the previous post. I will repeat: That I was not claiming it used nanotechnology. I said the wootz steel used nanotechnology(how it is used, how the ancients knew, is it naturally occuring is different matter altogether)

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.

It turns out you did not read it again. You certainly are losing credibility very fast, because you showing the readers here you don’t actually read peoples post and judge them without reading them. I am sure that will put off a lot of people from talking to you.

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

I obviously did and I read the chemical composition it is 98% pure iron with other metals mixed in it, some if you read the experts commentary are deliberately mixed in to give its corrosion proof technology.


And here is the article verifying that wootz steel uses nanotechnology:

Wiki:

Legends of Wootz steel and Damascus sword aroused the curiosity of the European scientific community from the 17th to the 19th Century. The use of high carbon alloys were not known in Europe previously and thus the research into Wootz steel played an important role in the development of modern English, French and Russian metallurgy.[7]

[edit] Western research
The British Occupation in the 1750s gave a fresh impetus into this research. By 1790, samples of wootz steel were received by Sir Joseph Banks, President of the British Royal society. These samples were subjected to scientic examination and analysis by several experts.[8][9]


Wootz was possibly rediscovered in the mid 19th century by the Russian metallurgist Pavel Petrovich Anosov (see Bulat steel), who refused to reveal the secret of its manufacture other than to write five one-sentence descriptions of different ways in which it could be made.
Master bladesmith Alfred Pendray re-discovered what may be the classic techniques in the early 1980s, as later verified by Dr. John Verhoeven. [10][11]
Another method of wootz production, using modern technology, was developed around 1980 by Dr. Oleg Sherby and Dr. Jeff Wadsworth at Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Even though this steel had the charactertistic bands of microcarbides, whether or not this could be considered wootz was disputed by Verhoeven since it was not made in a classical manner.
Recently, researcher Peter Paufler from Dresden University of Technology in Germany has discovered evidence of carbon nanotubes in Wootz steel[12]

I would like to see how you can spin this.

An advanced form of steel is being manufactured in India in around 500BCE(conservative dates). No such steel ever appears again and not until the 21st century is its secret discovered.

You demanded evidence of advanced material. This is a post-21st century material. Also bear in steel production in general did not take place until modern times. There was only one place that was manufacturing steel of a grade still unmatched, the Sanskrit metallurgical tradition.

If that doesn’t make you sit up and take notice, along with the computer science, formal language, mathematical linguistics and microbiology, then it is easy for everyone to see you have firmly shut your mind on this. Most people would think, “Damn really, they had nanotech steel in ancient times, they classified microrganims, they did plastic surgery and brain surgery, they used computer theory! Woah” Most rational people that is.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Normally, if somebody reads about something such as an iron pillar that is 1600 years old that has barely rusted one does not dismiss something like this.

Hans: I’ve noted you’ve switched from corrosion free to barely rusted. I accept it with all my heart, it is any excellent example of Indian technology – something THEY created not your mythical super civilization.

However, perhaps you cannot appreciate that a corrosion proof almost pure iron is practically impossible with normal iron technology, and no other metals even stainles steel can endure that long.

Hans: Ah Indigo you just admitted in the line above that it rusts, so how did it make the U-turn back to corrosion proof? Sure other metals can last that long – or we wouldn’t find any would we? Are you stating that no metal objects exists that are older than 1,600 years? Quite a silly claim by you I must admit!

So rightfully the Metallurgists have been fascinated with this pillar, which all you have done is dismissed belying your ignorance which is not shared by metallurgical experts.

Hans: They think it a wonderful example of what you can do with Iron in the 4th century and using hammers to beat ‘drums’ into a single pillar, wonderful but not high technology

Your argument that it was forge-welded is a straw man.

Hans: you said it was made by nanotechnology

I never said it wasn’t forge-welded. I am referring to the actual corrosion proof technology which the expert himself admits is post-21st century.

Hans: He didn’t say that Indigo, then read it again, then read it a third time – it says

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.

Hans He is saying, quite clearly to me, that this old technology may have uses. Lots of old technology has uses in the modern world. Its phosphorus iron mixture may have a use.

Your argument that it uses nanotechnology is another strawman and clearly shows you did not read what I said to you in the previous post. I will repeat: That I was not claiming it used nanotechnology. I said the wootz steel used nanotechnology

Hans: Oh and you have proof of “nano-technology”. I recommend in the future when you talk about the pillar and link to websites about it and then end the post with, "Summary" that says it was made with nano-technology– gosh excuse me from misunderstanding you, LOL

In late 2006, a group of scientists headed by Peter Paufler found direct evidence of nanotubes and nanowires in a sample of a 17th century sword forged from Damascus steel. The complex process of forging and annealing is thought to have accounted for the nano-scale structures

Sanderson, Katharine. "Sharpest cut from nanotube sword." Nature 444(2006): 286.

I obviously did and I read the chemical composition it is 98% pure iron with other metals mixed in it, some if you read the experts commentary are deliberately mixed in to give its corrosion proof technology.

Hans: So you admit that in saying it was pure Iron you are wrong, well you are slowing coming closer to reality, yep Iron with other stuff mixed in isn't 'pure'

I would like to see how you can spin this.

Hans: Indigo if you'd spent less time quote mining and focused on understanding what you are reading you wouldn’t make mistakes like this

A carbon nanotube can form naturally it doesn’t need “nanotechnology” to make it

They have reproduced Wootz blades and the key ingredient is Vanadium, a source of which, iron with vanadium in it, is found near hyderbad
This how wootz steel is made, it doesn’t use “nanotechnology”

Wootz link.

carbon nanotubes are not necessarily products of high-tech laboratories; they are commonly formed in such mundane places as ordinary flames- like forges.....

An advanced form of steel is being manufactured in India in around 500BCE(conservative dates). No such steel ever appears again and not until the 21st century is its secret discovered.

Hans: Nope the Arabs were making Wootz steel up the 18th century, they stopped when they lost their source of vanadium/iron

You demanded evidence of advanced material. This is a post-21st century material.

Hans: Nope, the secret is vanadium – go read the link and stop making stuff up

Also bear in steel production in general did not take place until modern times. There was only one place that was manufacturing steel of a grade still unmatched, the Sanskrit metallurgical tradition.

Hans: Example of said steel? Remember you've claimed everything was destroyed so where did it come from?

If that doesn’t make you sit up and take notice, along with the computer science, formal language, mathematical linguistics and microbiology, then it is easy for everyone to see you have firmly shut your mind on this.

Hans: Because you ‘proof’ of are your own statements. You are clearly quote mining and not reading what you are quoting. Carbon nanotubes form in nature and can form in metal when they are heated and hammered. You don't need "nanotechnology" to make them

Most people would think, “Damn really, they had nanotech steel in ancient times, they classified microrganims, they did plastic surgery and brain surgery, they used computer theory! Woah” Most rational people that is.

Hans: that is the problem with your hold theory, its all based on poor research and zealotry – always a bad combination! Good do some reading.

oh and

According to Will Durant (The Story of Civilization I: Our Oriental Heritage), the secret of manufacturing Damascus steel was learned by the Arabs from the Persians, and by the Persians from India and Sri Lanka. It is further believed that the people of the Indian subcontinent learned the techniques from the Chinese.

[edit on 4/4/09 by Hanslune]

Indigo made an interest comment about metals and how they wouldn't last like the Iron pillar of Delhi

Just to answer that the oldest known iron artifact is this dagger

Dagger



This is the Here is the Alaca Hoyuk iron dagger, it is dated to 2800-2500BC, rusted but still hanging in there.

Of course there is also Tut's dagger which is only 3,300 years old.

"When it was discovered in 1922, the tomb contained more gold than the Royal Bank of Egypt at the time. Tutankhamen had with him a truly royal weapon: an iron dagger with a hilt and sheath of gold decorated with rock crystal. The dagger blade had not rusted in more than 3000 years, and we do not know how it was forged. A set of 16 small iron chisels was also buried with the king. This gives some idea of the value of iron at the time.

Tut's dagger link

After 33 centuries in the tomb, the blade was found to be as bright as steel. Overall length is 13.5 inches. The haft is made of gold with granulated design and bands of inlaid glass and semi-precious stones. The pommel is shaped from a piece of sparkling rock crystal

Picture of the two daggers from Tut's tomb, a gold one and an iron one, probably of Hittite (Mitanni) manufacture






[edit on 4/4/09 by Hanslune]

Hans obviously can’t read

Hans: Ah Indigo you just admitted in the line above that it rusts, so how did it make the U-turn back to corrosion proof? Sure other metals can last that long – or we wouldn’t find any would we? Are you stating that no metal objects exists that are older than 1,600 years? Quite a silly claim by you I must admit!

No I said that no other metal other than certain ones developed by Indian metallurgists have not rusted over 1600 years. Actually because the rust that has formed on the pillar near the bottom is so negligible, most articles describe it as rust-proof.

I am waiting for your evidence for any other kind of metal outside the Sanskrit tradition that is 1600 years old or more and has barely rusted. By the way I had to laugh at your dagger

Hans: you said it was made by nanotechnology

You’ve required three clarifications on this. I said the wootz steel uses nanotechnology and that is indeed how articles have described it. I never made any claims of how they did it, whether it is naturally occurring or not.

All I said was that it had carbon nanotubes confirmed by the researcher

What is clear though that an advanced material known as wootz steel existed in ancient times, and we could not reproduce this material until very recently.

What is clear also steel and zinc were being manufactually industrially in India before the common era. These are advanced materials and they cannot be produced in the West until the 18th century. Thus clearly showing the West was thousands of years behind India in materials technology.

Advanced materials did exist in ancient times. But I do concede and I maintained this from the start that I do not think any of the archaeological or physical evidence is strong, but it does give food for thought. The real evidence is the soft evidence.

I was merely responding with the iron-pillar evidence because the poster specifically asked for corrosion-proof metals.

I've completely overlooked these.

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

Simple we find them because we've looked. Since we haven't looked every square feet on this earth how can you say there is nothing to be found?

Once again you contradict your self. If there is nothing else to look for then archeologists would cease to exist since it would be a pointless profession.

See... BIG PICTURE!

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?

I'm not arguing anything like that. I'm just not neglecting the fact that they might have existed.

I really don't get you. A while back if I'm not mistaken you were the one questioning the existence of technological advanced unknown civilizations in some other thread here and now you seem so close minded to subject when replaying to me, why? Is it personal?

And if I'm not wrong that was a great thread were we got along pretty well.

But just to clarify (not that I needed to) I'm not standing in defense of fringe writers, fringe science or anything like that. I don't buy Stichin nor do I believe that any civilization in a period inferior to at least 100.000 years or more could have Internet, nano-bots or any of those sorts of things. Hell... I don't even think I would consider that even for a civilization older than that.

All I'm saying is that scientists, archeologists and we as a whole should recognize that any of us have all the pieces of the puzzle figure out yet. And we probably won't ever have. So discarding possibilities is just being stupid.

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

In the very same way that evidences that are not able to prove the contrary are just the same form of speculation.

See, it's a silly loop.

So yes it's all speculation, imagination, your name it.

Do fossils oxidize?

I really hope you know the answer to that one.

Under the correct circumstances things become fossils, under the wrong conditions they simply vanish.

There are some pretty simple tests that any three years old can do with chicken bones to prove that.

And even if they do become fossils they still can degrade under the inappropriate conditions.

In the case of bones and depending on how they were fossilized the degradation process can happen in different ways.

But bones that contain iron pyrite can crumble down simply by putting them in a humid environment.

So what makes you think that just because they've turned into fossils they will last a lot or forever?

[edit on 4-4-2009 by thomas_]

Originally posted 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.

I guess the question would be how far back are you wuilling to go, and if you are talking about Homo sapiens or some much eariler off shoot that lived and became extint.


As of right now there is no picture big or small, only something to ponder on.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

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)

Are you suggesting they had nano technology, or that they understood it?
When you look at steel you see that it is basically iron and carbon. In japan the carbon comes from rice husks, so with both these materials they are very basic, and though they might have been the first to develop steel it does not take much to actualy make. They would need to also learn the bellows to create hot coal or peat moss fire to melt it all, but in the end we are not talking advance except for their time.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

You’ve required three clarifications on this. I said the wootz steel uses nanotechnology and that is indeed how articles have described it. I never made any claims of how they did it, whether it is naturally occurring or not.

All I said was that it had carbon nanotubes confirmed by the researcher

So this steel is basically wrought iron or iron ore and charcoal with glass, and is mixed with 1.5% carbon. India was working with iron 1100BC, so after 500 years you might think they could make a better product with that much time of trial and error.

Japanese swords were actually better than the wootz Damascus blades, but Japan was isolated and the world only knew of Damascus blades as the best in their day. Also, in Japan the makers of the steel and swords keep the methods secret, and I'm sure the same was back in the day with wootz steel.

It is not that wootz steel is better than any other steel, it is that it was an art in creating steel back in the day. Even something as small impurities in the iron they mined would add or take away from the steel.

The bigger question: is this proof of a 10,000 year old civiliation that was more advance than us, or of a cilvilation that worked with iron for a 1000 years and improved on it little by little.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You’ve required three clarifications on this. I said the wootz steel uses nanotechnology and that is indeed how articles have described it. I never made any claims of how they did it, whether it is naturally occurring or not.

Indigo, you complain that people don't understand what you are saying, but I think this arises from the fact that you don't really understand what you are saying. It doesn't help that your posts are often very verbose, and usually ramble over several subjects.

If you are saying it uses "nanotechnology" then this does mean the nanotubes were engineered intentionally by the makers and didn't occur as an accidental by-product of the technique (which is what Hans is suggesting). A commonly accepted definition of nanotechnology is:

Nanotechnology is the engineering of functional systems at the molecular scale. This covers both current work and concepts that are more advanced.

In its original sense, 'nanotechnology' refers to the projected ability to construct items from the bottom up, using techniques and tools being developed today to make complete, high performance products.

You also keep referring to the metal as "beyond 21c technology", to add to the confusion of your argument. That the material contains nanotubes does not mean that it's makers possessed the nanotechnology.

Advanced materials did exist in ancient times.

Nobody argues with that assertion. However it does not mean they had an advanced understanding of why materials behave as they do. The materials used in the iron pillar came about after hundreds of years of trial and error, not from some university research dept.

But I do concede and I maintained this from the start that I do not think any of the archaeological or physical evidence is strong, but it does give food for thought. The real evidence is the soft evidence.

Presumably the "soft evidence" is the translation of the Vedas that you keep refusing to share with us.

I was merely responding with the iron-pillar evidence because the poster specifically asked for corrosion-proof metals.

I think it was because you were pinned down over the matter of the Vedas translations and, as you often do, changed tack and added confusion and innuendo.

It seems your only evidence for your hypothesis is these ancient Sanskrit translations, which appear to be completely different from those carried out somewhere like Oxford uni, or any other leading academic dept.

If you want to advance your case then tell us:

1 Who made these translations?
2 What techniques did they use that were so different from the standard ones?
3 Where did they publish there work and which peers support it?

[edit on 5/4/09 by FatherLukeDuke]

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


FatheLuke,

You agree that advanced materials existed in ancient times, but we don't know if they understood it. Indeed this is correct, whether they chanced upon the discovery or were using ancient recipes based on advanced knowledge is unfalsifiable. All that needs to be established here that production technology in Ancient India was more advanced than production technology in the West up to the 18th century at least. The kind materials they were producing have only just been replicated and some of their metallurgical secrets still remain secrets.

The real evidence is the soft-evidence, hop on over to the other thread to see it. There is incontrovertible evidence that the level of knowledge of the Sanskrit tradition was post 21st century. I have not yet appealed to any translations of the Vedas because of their controversial naure. However none of the classical Sanskrit texts are controversial, because Classical Sanskrit is well known and has been a living language up until the 18th century. These texts clearly represent an advanced knowledge tradition and a post-enlightenment culture.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Xtrozero


Actually the techniques they used to make the steel is now known as the crucible technique which was not reinvented until the 18th century. In the article I produced above it clearly mentions how Modern western metallurgists extensively studied Indian metallurgy to manufacture both steel and zinc.

What is this telling us? It tells us the West is behind. What we call modern was demonstrably behind in some areas in ancient times, even production technology, thus completely shaterring the modernist philosophy which sees the past as antiquated. Now hop onto the other thread and see that it's not even production technology we are consulting for the ancient Indians for, everrything from modern surgical techniques to modern linguistics and logic and theoretical computer science, even quantum mechanics is directly derived from this Sanskrit tradition. Curious that, no?

The truth is what we call modern is itself derived from the Sanskrit tradition and we still have not reached their standard of science. In modern language a lot of our taking from the Sanskrit tradition without explicit credit would be calld plagiarism.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

I am waiting for your evidence for any other kind of metal outside the Sanskrit tradition that is 1600 years old or more and has barely rusted. By the way I had to laugh at your dagger

Hans: You are laughing at yourself then. You appear to be intellectually bankrupted. You asked for iron outside the Sanskrit tradition that hasn’t rusted. You were shown Tut’s dagger, which is not rusted. Your failure to acknowledge it means you cannot accept facts that go against your own ego generated reality. You are lying to yourself. How sad. Its obvious that you are unable to accept your own errors so I will begin a list of your unaccepted errors and repost them each time we talk.

I said the wootz steel uses nanotechnology and that is indeed how articles have described it. I never made any claims of how they did it, whether it is naturally occurring or not.

Hans: Can you get anymore ridiculous Indigo? As I have said before you are quote mining without understanding. So you were claiming the superiority of ancient Indian technology over something YOU already knew was natural? That you knew wasn’t made by nanotechnology- but you claimed it was made by nanotechnology just for grins and giggles? That smacks of extreme stupidity or a fringe believer trying to pull a fast one! LOL You were caught yet again trying to lie to people, or are you just a poor researcher?

All I said was that it had carbon nanotubes confirmed by the researcher

Hans: No, you are lying yet again, you said it was made using nanotechnology, it wasn’t. This is what YOU said

Summary:

* Nanotechnology steel
* Corrosion-proof iron
* Zinc

I’ll explain it again to you, the steel had carbon nanotubes in it. Those tubes occur naturally and are part of the production process which involves heating the metal, they didn’t need or use nanotechnology to create the steel. Your claim that they did is incorrect, to continue to claim they used nanotechnology is to lie. Simple

Actually the techniques they used to make the steel is now known as the crucible technique which was not reinvented until the 18th century.

Hans: No Indigo, you are deliberately misrepresenting again. The last swords made using the technique were made in the 18th century, in Persia.

Indigo's hall of shame:

1. Claimed no iron artifact outside of the Sanskrit tradition wouldn't rust away, was shown proof but failed to accept

2. Claimed ancient Indians made corrison proof metal, shown evidence that they did no such thing. Failure to accept

3. Claimed ancient Indians used Nanotechnology, shown evidence she was wrong but she failed to accept it.

I think we're going to get a really, really, really long list, amybe we should start a lottery on how long the list will get?

Howdy Thomas

You seem to be locked into some sorta of alternative universe

Simple we find them because we've looked. Since we haven't looked every square feet on this earth how can you say there is nothing to be found?

Hans: Once again Thomas you do not comprehend. I did not say, “there is nothing to be found”

I said, Nothing has been found….there is a different, read it a couple of times. Think about it, read it again, get someone to quiz you on it, sheesh!

I'm not arguing anything like that. I'm just not neglecting the fact that they might have existed.

Hans: Yep they may have existed and they may not - we'll need evidence to move them over to the existed stack

So let me restate again
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

I cannot make it any simplier than this, if you want to mis-understand it again, there is nothing I can do. LOL

All I'm saying is that scientists, archeologists and we as a whole should recognize that any of us have all the pieces of the puzzle figure out yet. And we probably won't ever have. So discarding possibilities is just being stupid.

Hans: No one is discarding possibilities why you would think that I have no idea

Hans there is never any accuse to personally attack somebody, no matter how much you disagree with them. I have seen that you don't discuss with people here with differing beliefs, you call them names, dimiss what they say, ridicule them. I have ended my discussion with you in the other thread and I'm ending this one as well. You are simply not a nice person to talk to I'm afraid.

I am very much open to people who disbelieve me and will still engage skeptical arguments against what I say, but I am not going to tolerate open abuses and disrespect. So I will politely ask you not to respond to any of my posts so we can keep peace.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Actually the techniques they used to make the steel is now known as the crucible technique which was not reinvented until the 18th century. In the article I produced above it clearly mentions how Modern western metallurgists extensively studied Indian metallurgy to manufacture both steel and zinc.

As I said, making steel was an art, and reinventing it was only for the sole purpose to understand the art of wootz steel. That steel has not been used for anything, or replaced anything we use today or 100s and 100s of years ago. Steel is the most basic combination of metals and carbon. They hit on a good recipe of 500 years of trial and error….nice. I’m not sure your point in all this. If your point was to say that they should be credited with advancements that they did first I agree with you. If you suggest they were more advance in 500BC than the west was in 1500 AD I will need to disagree.

The truth is what we call modern is itself derived from the Sanskrit tradition and we still have not reached their standard of science. In modern language a lot of our taking from the Sanskrit tradition without explicit credit would be calld plagiarism.

This is where I think you are failing in your debate, to say "we still have not reached their standard of science" might seem to you that it pushes your point in a strong direction, but it really just kills it.

lets play a game...

You name one thing we cannot do today that they did, and I'll name one million things we can do today that they didn't have a clue about. I think you will loose this game....

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Xtrozero]

As I said, making steel was an art, and reinventing it was only for the sole purpose to understand the art of wootz steel. That steel has not been used for anything, or replaced anything we use today or 100s and 100s of years ago. Steel is the most basic combination of metals and carbon. They hit on a good recipe of 500 years of trial and error….nice. I’m not sure your point in all this. If your point was to say that they should be credited with advancements that they did first I agree with you. If you suggest they were more advance in 500BC than the west was in 1500 AD I will need to disagree.

All I am showing by pointing out that ancient production techology was more advanced than production technology in the 18th century is that modernism is not a valid philosophy. That advanced technologies and advanced knowledge can exist even in ancient times. I am also highligting that the label modern which refers to only Western history is a dubious label, the West were behind non-western cultures in modern times, and still are behind in many areas.

I am demonstrating this so that it opens the minds of other people to non-western cultures, their history, philosophy and own scientific development. It will then become clear what we call modern is a meaningless label which only refers to the development of one culture. The Sanskrit civilisation is thousands of years older and there maybe yet other olders civilisations which we have no trace of.

This is where I think you are failing in your debate, to say "we still have not reached their standard of science" might seem to you that it pushes your point in a strong direction, but it really just kills it.

lets play a game...

You name one thing we cannot do today that they did, and I'll name one million things we can do today that they didn't have a clue about. I think you will loose this game....

I am not really interested in a discussion on what we can do and what the they couldn't. In the way we could argue we cannot replicate the Nazca lines or the Pyramids of Gitza, but that just means that we have not deveoped interest in that field. It would be an apples and oranges comparison. A better discussion would be on something which is characteristic of development such as logic and linguistics in which we can do a comparison of their logic and linguistics vs ours.

I am prepared to take you up on that challenge because I know for a fact we are very behind the Sanskrit tradition in logic and linguistics. We cannot create a formal language with natural language processing like Sanskrit. This is the clincher. We haven nothing even close to Sanskrit, it is so beyond our understanding that it may take us several centuries to develop something like it(I am not just referring to its formal nature, but its amazing mathematical and representative powers)

I requoting an article from the other thread to give you an idea of this:

Briggs, R. Sanskrit & Artificial Intelligence - Knowledge Representation in Sanskrit and Artificial Intelligence . Roacs, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, California

www.vedicsciences.net...

In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor.

But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1,000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old.

Bhate.S, Kak.S.Panini's Grammar and Computer Science. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 72,
1993, pp. 79-94

www.ece.lsu.edu...

The enterprise of computer science has two fundamental elements. The element is to develop techniques that make the elucidation of the computational structure of nature and the mind easier. The second element is the creation of new computing algorithms and machines that have powerful cognitive and computational abilities: this includes development of new techniques of representing and manipulating knowledge, inference and deduction. The tasks of representing and processing knowledge with a somewhat different emphasis has parallels in many ancient disciplines. Thus grammarians have long considered questions of relating facts about the physical world and
cognition to linguistic expressions. Likewise logicians have developed formal structures to relate events and draw inferences from them. This is seen best in the work of ancient Indian logicians and grammarians. It has been argued by Ingalls, Staal, Matilal, Briggs, Kak and others1 that many contemporary developments in formal logic, linguistics, and computer science are a rediscovery of the work of these ancient masters. But apart from the question of a correct history of ideas it raises the following important question of significance to Sanskritists as well as cognitive and computer scientists: Are there other rules in ancient Indian logic and grammar that may be of use in making further advance in cognitive and computer sciences?

By the way I do not blame anyone to be ignorant of Sanskrit and the tradition, it is such an elite tradition, one needs thorough grounding in it and have to read very extensively to understand it. I cannot expect others to commit that amount of attention that I have, but my convinction comes from a lot of research. As I cannot reproduce all this research here I cannot expect others to be convinced, but do expect some courtesy and a inquisitive attitude of those who are engaging me on my claims.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

So I will politely ask you not to respond to any of my posts so we can keep peace.

Hans: Sorry, no as long as you continue to put forth your misinformation and won’t debate honesty I will continue to point out the errors in your arguments and ask the hard question you are so, so afraid of and what you have been found wrong on and refuse to acknowledge.

Oh wait you did acknowledge that your signature contradicted your claim that you didn't have evidence while at the same time claiming you had absolute proof. I salute your acceptance of reality

You have a lovely day. LOL

Now lets go thru the stuff you are wrong on (again)


1. Claimed no iron artifact outside of the Sanskrit tradition wouldn't rust away, was shown proof but failed to accept

So did you or did you not see Tut's iron dagger which hadn't rusted? Why did you reject the evidence?

reply to post by Hanslune


In that case you need to argue your arguments in a polite and respectful manner and actually make an effort to read what is being provided to you. Untill I do not see evidence of that I will not respond to any of your posts.

I know it is perfectly possible to have a polite and friiendly discussion with people you disagree with, so I expect nothing less.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


So answer the question Indigo - why do you reject Tut's iron dagger?

reply to post by Hanslune


I rejected the first dagger because it was falling to pieces. I believe I must have overlooked the other. The one is very interesting, it hasn't rusted in 3000 years. Then I must retract my statement that no other metallurgy outside the Sanskrit tradition had such anti-corrosion proof technology. It appears that there were others too. However I must now offer a qualification "no other virtually pure iron metal structure in an outside environment exposed to weather over hundreds of years which has virtually not rusted is to be found" to my knowledge. Perhaps you will correct me?

I hope you realise that for me this argument is moot. I do not consider any of the archealogical and physical evidence strong. My main interest is in the soft evidence, the knowledge.



[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]