Rediscovery of Technology

smr wrote:Ancient stone carvings in India, these stone carvings look just like rocket engines. I am not scientist but I think most people can connect the dots and say we had higher technological level than the official history books record.

A person needs to only view about the first 30 to 40 seconds to understand what they are showing you (they loop it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsgOzwbxEC8

Leonardo Da Vinci had drawings of flying machines, submarines, etc. Do you consider that evidence that we were at a higher technical level that we have only just reached again?

A more likely explanation for his drawings (and I'm not claiming I believe it) was given by Robert Heinlein in The Door into Summer. If you haven't read it, it is one of his juveniles that, like all of his books, reads pretty well.

Does the stone carving look eerily similar to the NASA rocket engine? Yes or No

Fallsfromtrees, the balls in your court.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

smr wrote:Ancient stone carvings in India, these stone carvings look just like rocket engines. I am not scientist but I think most people can connect the dots and say we had higher technological level than the official history books record.

A person needs to only view about the first 30 to 40 seconds to understand what they are showing you (they loop it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsgOzwbxEC8

Leonardo Da Vinci had drawings of flying machines, submarines, etc. Do you consider that evidence that we were at a higher technical level that we have only just reached again?

A more likely explanation for his drawings (and I'm not claiming I believe it) was given by Robert Heinlein in The Door into Summer. If you haven't read it, it is one of his juveniles that, like all of his books, reads pretty well.

smr wrote:Does the stone carving look eerily similar to the NASA rocket engine? Yes or No

Fallsfromtrees, the balls in your court.

No, smr, the ball's in yours. You want us to believe in your theories. You keep throwing out these weird youtube videos that claim to show proof.

Yes, these things look like rocket engines. That doesn't prove anything at all, just like Jules Verne's descriptions of Nautilus do not prove that Verne knew about nuclear propulsion systems. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You keep making claims, but you do not provide evidence.

And remember how I showed that even if they were manipulating the data even more than they actaully were, with and without the manipulation, the results were still identical in terms of the conclusion drawn?

smr wrote:@Daryl - Remember when I brought out the issue of world wide government scientists manipulating data to show us warming. I linked to articles showing how the scientists were manipulating data to show we were getting when in fact we are getting colder. Here's a link to article showing how they are manipulating the data.

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/global-warming-temperature-date-faked/2015/02/08/id/623494/

Just remember, Al Gore owns a huge stake in exchange that allows companies to buy and sell carbon credits. These are the same people that want a worldwide government that charges everyone for carbon credits to pay for the government. Always follow the money!

ANd what if you have apophenia ( seeing patterns or objects in randomness)? you would see a rocket engine where there is none. rocket engines happen to be a shape thats physically efficient, so you would expect to see some natural erosion patterns looking similar.

smr wrote:Does the stone carving look eerily similar to the NASA rocket engine? Yes or No

Fallsfromtrees, the balls in your court.

smr wrote:I read his stories as a young kid, so perhaps it made a strong impression on my when I was younger. I will have to see if Hogan is still alive. I would like to know if he got this from the old legends or did he just create it. Also, I have a strong belief that Giants existed on Earth. However, I saw an 8 foot skeleton during my travels through South America. It's not hard to believe in Giants when you consider Genetics and that their is group of humans who average 7 feet tall in Africa.

8 foot? So what? Tallest KNOWN human to have lived was nearly 9 foot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people
That list alone has 15 people who was alive sometime from 1900 or later and was 8 feet or taller.

Just remember, Al Gore owns a huge stake in exchange that allows companies to buy and sell carbon credits. These are the same people that want a worldwide government that charges everyone for carbon credits to pay for the government. Always follow the money!

And you just made yourself utterly laughable again. Not to forget showing off your blinders. Do you really think Al Gore has any say to, for example, freelancing scientists in Brazil, Japan or Russia?

@Daryl - Remember when I brought out the issue of world wide government scientists manipulating data to show us warming.

The problem is that huge amounts of RAW DATA can be accessed by anyone, and the data can be verified by paper trail, and independent researchers and staff, and extended if you go through the hoops of getting additional access.

And funny thing, if you remove the MEDIA hyperbole, then the data shows, guess what, warming...
The only uncertainty are the details, the same kind of details that makes it impossible to predict weather perfectly even for a day better than "there´s X% chance of weather Y".

Known fact - climate changes
Known fact - many things influence climate changes
Known fact - there is proven historical evidence regarding human actions influencing climate.
Known fact - human actions do influence climate.
Unknown facts - to what extent does human action influence climate, and how severe will the consequences be?

My opinion - researchers tend to emphasise results that will increase their funding and prestige, however even allowing for that, we are in trouble and it will continue to get worse.

Daryl wrote:Known fact - climate changes
Known fact - many things influence climate changes
Known fact - there is proven historical evidence regarding human actions influencing climate.
Known fact - human actions do influence climate.
Unknown facts - to what extent does human action influence climate, and how severe will the consequences be?

My opinion - researchers tend to emphasise results that will increase their funding and prestige, however even allowing for that, we are in trouble and it will continue to get worse.

Known fact - We are currently in a minor ice age.

Definition of minor ice age - Any geologically significant period of time when both poles are covered in ice.

Given we're technically in an ice age (albeit probably the first where one pole is not covered by a landmass as well), we can expect to warm up.
Given that, more energy should be put into working out how to cope than in trying to stop it since the climate is always changing.

It's like the ecosystem, a dynamic equilibrium. And trying to interfere with a dynamic equilibrium without truly understanding what is happening is like trying to overhaul a steam engine while it is running. Not a good idea.

I do agree that we are experiencing some climate change. By definition the world is always going through climate change. The fact that people on the other end of the argument are unable to admit that the data is being manipulated by certain scientists. These individuals have been routinely caught. From Australia to England and to America these scientists have altered the data, I know if I did that at my job..........I would be fired! Yet their still teaching and publishing their garbage.

Now, I get made fun of showing atone carvings of rocket engines and rocket capsules. When I connect the dots that seem pretty good, the messenger is attacked. I did ask do they look like carvings of rocket engines...yes or no? That's real simple to answer truthfully.

Sorry Michael this is not directed at you but previous forum posters!

Michael Everett wrote:

Daryl wrote:Known fact - climate changes
Known fact - many things influence climate changes
Known fact - there is proven historical evidence regarding human actions influencing climate.
Known fact - human actions do influence climate.
Unknown facts - to what extent does human action influence climate, and how severe will the consequences be?

My opinion - researchers tend to emphasise results that will increase their funding and prestige, however even allowing for that, we are in trouble and it will continue to get worse.

Known fact - We are currently in a minor ice age.

Definition of minor ice age - Any geologically significant period of time when both poles are covered in ice.

Given we're technically in an ice age (albeit probably the first where one pole is not covered by a landmass as well), we can expect to warm up.
Given that, more energy should be put into working out how to cope than in trying to stop it since the climate is always changing.

It's like the ecosystem, a dynamic equilibrium. And trying to interfere with a dynamic equilibrium without truly understanding what is happening is like trying to overhaul a steam engine while it is running. Not a good idea.

smr wrote:I do agree that we are experiencing some climate change. By definition the world is always going through climate change. The fact that people on the other end of the argument are unable to admit that the data is being manipulated by certain scientists. These individuals have been routinely caught. From Australia to England and to America these scientists have altered the data, I know if I did that at my job..........I would be fired! Yet their still teaching and publishing their garbage.

Now, I get made fun of showing atone carvings of rocket engines and rocket capsules. When I connect the dots that seem pretty good, the messenger is attacked. I did ask do they look like carvings of rocket engines...yes or no? That's real simple to answer truthfully.

Sorry Michael this is not directed at you but previous forum posters!

The difference, dear smr, is that you're not just asking "do these things look like rockets?". You're trying to set up an argument that boils down to "X looks like Y, therefore X must be a depiction of Y, therefore Y must have been present when X was made", which is not sustainable without corroborating evidence (like Nautilus not being evidence of nuclear submarines in the 19th century).