Ancient technology

Originally posted by twhitehead
You claimed your statement was based on the linear approach of science. I am saying that it is you making the claim not science, so it must have been you using the linear approach.

[b]As regards to "the Big Bang Theory" I was just referring to the pictorial montage at the start credits which implies that since the Big Bang and the subsequent advent of ...[text shortened]... ere have however been many cases of advances being lost and civilizations being destroyed etc.

Ok thanks.

Originally posted by Penguin
That only asserts that our achievements have become more complex, not that our intelligence has increased.

As we have discovered more about the universe and our environment, that new knowledge and ability allows the same level of intelligence to gain still more knowledge and ability.

As Newton said: "If I have seen further, it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants"

--- Penguin.

And it is those words of Newton that have given me a framework of ideas from which to build upon.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You can think what you want.

I think it has been firmly established by quantum that on an extremely small scale, 'normal' laws of physics break down and a new theory has had to be found. So as reliable as Newtons and einsteins physics may be, those theories do not account for all observed phenomena.

Again, I wonder why my credibility is question ...[text shortened]... ill try to understand what spirituality means to me unless you can show me where I have erred.

Of the two of us. Who went to university to study physics?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I believe one researcher followed the 'ramp theory' , factoring in slave labor, 200-400tonne blocks and the tools used at that time, including the lifespan of people of the time, and came up with that figure.

They bandy a number of 20,000 but maybe it was 4 or 5 times more people involved.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, but that 10 year figure also supposes that, using 16,000 to 40,000 workers, 2 million 2.5 ton blocks could have been placed at a sustained rate of 180 per hour, or 3 per minute (!), in 10-hour workdays for those 10 years. And this is ONLY the Great Pyramid. You tell me if that sounds reasonable.

I was actually advocating the "5 generation" figure or 150 or so years.

I'm not sure what figure would be reasonable, but it is reasonable to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were hell bent on doing things the hard way, if they in fact did build those things with only slave labor and limited technology.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Of the two of us. Who went to university to study physics?

Not me, but what does that prove? I didn't goto uni but I'll wager I read more science books from the uni curriculum than most uni students did.

I'll admit that I am not altogether confident discussing relativity, however I am well aware of workings of particle physics on a Newtonian scale.
And anyway, I am proposing that quantum scale physics holds the answers to mystery of matter. Quantum physics , which is largely unknown to the layman.

Originally posted by sonhouse
They bandy a number of 20,000 but maybe it was 4 or 5 times more people involved.

I cant see how (using the ramp method) it would matter how many people worked on it. You can still only move huge stones safely at one speed, one at a time, so even if they had maximum efficiency with the labor, it would still require a certain amount of time to build.
Remember the ramp itself would've required a huge amount of support and constant alteration as the pyramid grew.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The pyramids of Giza were also built along very prominent constellations, which would have taken extra time to plan with such precision.
References? Remember that writers about such monuments typically greatly exaggerate precision and alignment to astronomical observations.

I've read that not long ago (last 100 years) a so-called primitive tribe ( Great Pyramid of Giza. Maybe the mystery is where you got that information, not why they did it.

The pyramids of Giza were also built along very prominent constellations, which would have taken extra time to plan with such precision.
References? Remember that writers about such monuments typically greatly exaggerate precision and alignment to astronomical observations.

He doesn't need references for this one. You can check it yourself. Get a satellite map of the Giza Plateau, with a closeup of the three large pyramids. Then get a star chart of Orion's Belt. The three pyramids correspond to the alignment of the stars in Orion's Belt. It's clear, you can see for yourself.

I've read that not long ago (last 100 years) a so-called primitive tribe (the Dogon tribe ?) was discovered in Africa who seemed to live like tribal cultures from thousands of years ago. They had the bare minimum for survival except for an excellent knowledge of astronomy . They said there was a second planet circling the star called Sirius which could not be detected by the science of the time. Subsequent advancements in astronomy have revealed their knowledge to be true.
References? And what about the first planet? Wikipedia says Sirius is a double star and that no planets have been detected around either, and that there is a third star behind the pair that is unrelated.
As I said, exaggeration is common, so check your sources.

I'm sure that this is what he's talking about: "In 1976 Robert K. G. Temple wrote a book called The Sirius Mystery arguing that the Dogon's system reveals precise knowledge of cosmological facts only known by the development of modern astronomy, since they appear to know, from Griaule and Dieterlen's account, that Sirius was part of a binary star system, whose second star, Sirius B, a white dwarf, was however completely invisible to the human eye, and that it took 50 years to complete its orbit. The existence of Sirius B had only been inferred to exist through mathematical calculations undertaken by Friedrich Bessel in 1844. Temple then argued that the Dogon's information, if traced back to ancient Egyptian sources and myth, indicated an extraterrestrial transmission of knowledge of the stars. Neither Griaule nor Dieterlen had ever made such bold claims about a putative esoteric source for the Dogon's knowledge." -- Quoted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogon_people

Anyway it seems that different ancient cultures had totally different reasons for knowing astronomy and to say that it was good for measuring cycles of time is a fair reason, but why the pyramids were built to mirror huge constellations is still a mystery.
Odd then that Wikipedia does not have 'constellation' anywhere on the page on the Great Pyramid of Giza. Maybe the mystery is where you got that information, not why they did it.

No, the mystery IS the "why?" since anyone with a detailed map and a starchart can see the relationship for themselves. One thing Google seems good for these days is reducing ignorance. You should try it some time.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Not me, but what does that prove? I didn't goto uni but I'll wager I read more science books from the uni curriculum than most uni students did.

I'll admit that I am not altogether confident discussing relativity, however I am well aware of workings of particle physics on a Newtonian scale.
And anyway, I am proposing that quantum scale physics holds the answers to mystery of matter. Quantum physics , which is largely unknown to the layman.

Well I think my point was that given that I did (among others here on these forums)
go to university and study physics, a main constituent of which was quantum physics.
And thus it might be relevant that I, and everyone else who's studied physics, thinks
you are talking complete bunk.
It's also relevant because you, who hasn't ever studied it, seem to want to tell us
what quantum physics is, and what it means.
And also to tell us that the quantum world looks different than the classical Newtonian
one... Because that's not at all covered in senior school physics lessons let alone university...

You know I have a bookshelf of layman's books on physics I read as kid too, which
means bupkis in terms of actual physics knowledge.

There is a reason there are cartoons like this that appear on a regular basis...

http://xkcd.com/1240/

What you are saying about science and quantum physics is just nonsense.

Claiming that you are right "because of quantum" is a big indicator that you are in fact
wrong, and have no clue what you are talking about.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I was actually advocating the "5 generation" figure or 150 or so years.

I'm not sure what figure would be reasonable, but it is reasonable to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were hell bent on doing things the hard way, if they in fact did build those things with only slave labor and limited technology.

Check this out, then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle

It is said that the man who built this worked by himself, mostly at night. The total amount of oolithic limestone used in its construction is estimated at 1,000 tons of rock, most stones (some far heavier than most stones used in the Great Pyramid) fitted so closely that no light shows through the cracks, even without mortar. There have been many guesses at how he did this, ranging from reverse magnetism to an anti-gravity machine to even "magic".

If Ancient Egyptians knew the secret of how this was built, then the Great Pyramids would've been a piece of cake.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You can think what you want.

Yes I can. That doesn't make me wrong.

I think it has been firmly established by quantum that on an extremely small scale, 'normal' laws of physics break down and a new theory has had to be found. So as reliable as Newtons and einsteins physics may be, those theories do not account for all observed phenomena.
And Quantum Mechanics is that new theory.

But 'Newtons Laws aren't accurate at small scales' does not equate to 'anything is possible'.

Again, I wonder why my credibility is questioned here so often.
In this thread, I did not question your credibility, I questioned the credibility of your sources and advised you to be skeptical of them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I can. That doesn't make me wrong.

[b]I think it has been firmly established by quantum that on an extremely small scale, 'normal' laws of physics break down and a new theory has had to be found. So as reliable as Newtons and einsteins physics may be, those theories do not account for all observed phenomena.
And Quantum Mechanics is that new t ...[text shortened]... y, I questioned the credibility of your sources and advised you to be skeptical of them.[/b]

I think he might be referring to me...

As I do question his credibility as well as his sources.

Being skeptical is generally good advice...
But you need to know how to be skeptical...
which is where most people go wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I think my point was that given that I did (among others here on these forums)
go to university and study physics, a main constituent of which was quantum physics.
And thus it might be relevant that I, and everyone else who's studied physics, thinks
you are talking complete bunk.
It's also relevant because you, who hasn't ever studied it, see ...[text shortened]... big indicator that you are in fact
wrong, and have no clue what you are talking about.

I have 'no clue' now. Which of my 3 basic points on quantum in the op have I gotten wrong then.
You should know that quantum is only a fledgling science and that beyond refuting classical particle physics in some very basic ways, there are only theories as to what actually constitutes matter and the way it behaves.

I thought science encouraged new thought.

Just because I have my own take on some quantum principles doesn't mean I refute everyone else'e views on it.

Sheesh. This is googlefudge overkill at its best. Dare I say that it is you , not I, that will be potantially 'missing out' on further knowledge

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I can. That doesn't make me wrong.

[b]I think it has been firmly established by quantum that on an extremely small scale, 'normal' laws of physics break down and a new theory has had to be found. So as reliable as Newtons and einsteins physics may be, those theories do not account for all observed phenomena.
And Quantum Mechanics is that new t ...[text shortened]... y, I questioned the credibility of your sources and advised you to be skeptical of them.[/b]

I did not say you are wrong or infer it.

I did not claim that 'anything is possible'.

So if quantum mechanics explains how matter operates at a quantum level, then how does it account for electrons spinning in such a uniform way as to give us matter as we know it at a macro level? Why dont the spinning quantum particles just fly all over the place?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Um.. Yes..Yes they did predict a celestial object that was only later confirmed with telescopes.

Um, no, no, they didn't. And until you provide me with a reference, all we can do is speculate.

When someones stories fit in with established science and/or can be cross-referenced in other books , does this not make them more plausible?
Not always.

You have implied that I was using an exaggerated story, which would be like twisting the meaning of some story.
No, I did not imply that you were doing the exaggeration. Were you? I simply assumed you passed it on as you heard it and that it was your source, or your sources' source that exaggerated or made it up. Hence my request for a source.

I do take all stories with a bit of skepticism. I guess we differ on what is 'extraordinary'.
If you wish to make a claim about ancient civilisation that does not fit with the standard history books then that claim is extraordinary. It doesn't mean its wrong, it just means it should be checked.

I just cant understand why they would use such enormous blocks , so big that even modern day cranes would have trouble lifting them, to build a so-called burial chamber?
Status.
Why do you think the Queen of England has a palace? Why does Dubai have the tallest building in the world?
Why was this built:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Renaissance_Monument