Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: How would Re-Discovering Atlantis Change our World?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,273
    Xander67

    Academic Archaeology? I read Enough to know that where something is not known they make up a bullshit story to avoid admiting they are human and just don't know..

    Why not say "we are still searching"?
    What are you reading, exactly? As somebody who goes through at least half a dozen peer-reviewed articles from places like Norwegian Archaeology Review and Acta Archaeologica a day and has for years of study now, I've got to say that I know plenty of archaeologists who fail to come to conclusions, bullshit or not.:P

    green aventurine

    Here's someone else who had problems with the church. Perhaps you'd like to provide us with some supporting links or quotes for your side of the argument?

    "Fearing the condemnation of the church, however, Descartes was rightly cautious about publicly expressing the full measure of his radical views."

    http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4b.htm
    That's kind of a throwaway, unsourced line, though. Descartes was also known as a staunch defender of the Church.

    Here's another:

    "Another Copernican, Giordano Bruno, had been prosecuted in Rome by the same Cardinal Bellarmine and on 17 February 1600, burned at the stake as a heretic primarily for his theologic views and not necessarily his scientific ones."

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

    although you might not want to count him.
    I wouldn't, no, for obvious reasons.

    Look, Galileo was persecuted, sure (although he did sort of ask for the harsher punishment when he violated an explicit agreement with the Pope). But other than a few instances of that sort, mostly in the face of the Reformation, things were quite different. The proto-science of scholasticism was a monastic phenomenon. The mathematical and biological advancements made in the Medieval Islamic world were often treated as shedding light on the glory of Allah's creation, etc.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    7,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Xander67 View Post
    From the same site,
    ok, 8 men dragging a 2.5 ton stone across the desert? on a sled? or rolling logs ?? yeah ok...
    My 10 year old Niece is smart enough to know this is bullshit.

    at least they are able to say that no one knows for certian.
    But the thing is... you can do it. It's fairly basic physics actually. You just have to reduce the coefficients of static and kinetic friction between the block and the ground. I'm going to see if I can find some numbers so I can show you what I mean. It's how one man can pull the engine of a train.

    Lots of things sound like bullshit that aren't.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    7,071
    I have some approximate numbers, and please feel free to check my math.

    If the coefficient of kinetic friction between the block and the wood (probably with some water or similar as an added lubricant) is around .2 (which is fairly realistic) and the block weighs 2.5 tons (or 2,500kg I'm assuming metric tons, but if it is tons (US) the number would be about 500kg less)... then the force pulling on it would be ~612.5N for each of the eight men if they were pulling it. As a comparison, one man pulling me on a rubber mat over concrete would be pulling with ~627.2N, so I'd say it is doable.

    (PS. I am assuming a constant speed)
    Last edited by Jolixte; March 21st, 2009 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Adding diagrams

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California
    Age
    35
    Posts
    10,806
    things would probably change as much as they would with any other great historical find
    Crying "cherry-picking!" with one breath and "diversity!" with the next doesn't work either.~brymble
    "Sometimes the Light at the End of the Tunnel is really a Cranky Dragon waiting to roast your ass!"

    In Darkness I Know Myself



    Close friends with: Yarrow Elfglow, Czechwoods, Rudas Starblaze, Stormbeard, Philosophia, The Woman Monster, Rick and Elise, Sacred Sin David19.....



  5. #55
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    948
    http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/k.htm#keme

    http://www.philosophypages.com/faq.htm#who


    Garth Kemerling is the guy who wrote the Descartes article. He hasn't provided a source for that statement which is fair enough but given who he is, I'd say it would require more than this in response to negate it….

    Descartes was also known as a staunch defender of the Church.”

    ….as, to be fair, this is also a throwaway, unsourced line, as you define it.

    ####################################

    With respect to Bruno:



    “Some important documents about the trial are lost, but others have been preserved, among them a summary of the proceedings that was rediscovered in 1940.[11] The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo lists them as follows:[12]
    • Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
    • Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
    • Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
    • Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
    • Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
    • Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
    • Dealing in magics and divination.
    • Denying the Virginity of Mary.
    […]
    Bruno also affirmed that the universe was homogeneous, made up everywhere of the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), rather than having the stars be composed of a separate quintessence. Essentially, the same physical laws would operate everywhere, although the use of that term is anachronistic. Space and time were both conceived as infinite. There was no room in his stable and permanent universe for the Christian notions of divine creation and Last Judgement.
    Under this model, the Sun was simply one more star, and the stars all suns, each with its own planets. Bruno saw a solar system of a sun/star with planets as the fundamental unit of the universe. According to Bruno, infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe, formed of an infinite number of solar systems, separated by vast regions full of Aether, because empty space could not exist.”

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

    I found this quite interesting. I think in those days, I get the impression it would be especially hard to separate things like (experimental) science, cosmology, Christian religion/theology etc when you were doing scientific enquiry. It seems to me, at least some of his theolgical ‘crimes’/views are a consequence of and based on his scientific enquiries such as getting rid of (Christian) divine creation and the last judgement, for example. We'll never know for definite, although I don't find it obvious to discount him, personally.

    ########################################

    Originally Posted by Tiberias
    For the record, science and religion have been working together for anywhere from 300 to 1000 years, depending on how strictly you define scientific inquiry. Longer if you include Greek philosophers (which I would not). I think Aquinas, Magnus, Scotus, and Bacon (both of them, for that matter) would all be very confused by your statement.

    (xander’s reply) Science and the Church worked together so long as the government would allow it to. Bacon knew what I meant, or would have known rather lol

    It seems to me that the essence of this particular disagreement is about whether people doing scientific enquiry (however broadly you want to define that) could pursue this and research/write/publish material contrary to what the church believed with impunity when it was in power or whether there were limits to what they could do without being punished in some way. It doesn't seem to me this disagreement is about whether or not people were actually in the employment of the church and monasteries and other religions etc to do scientific enquiry or whether or not some of these people weren’t harassed if they didn’t commit heresy with their work, unless I’ve missed something – these aren’t something I have a problem with personally, anyway.

    If it's your assertion that people researching/writing/publishing scientific enquiries could do this with impunity even if it was contrary to the church's belief when it was in power, then perhaps you'd like to find us a quote or a link to an article supporting this? Perhaps there were instances where, for example, Aquinas, Magnus, Scotus and Bacon produced some material etc that was in complete violation of the church's basic beliefs with impunity which you could find us a link for?

    Also it would be helpful if you could provide us with an exact definition of what you mean by scientific enquiry.

    thanks

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolixte View Post
    I have some approximate numbers, and please feel free to check my math.

    If the coefficient of kinetic friction between the block and the wood (probably with some water or similar as an added lubricant) is around .2 (which is fairly realistic) and the block weighs 2.5 tons (or 2,500kg I'm assuming metric tons, but if it is tons (US) the number would be about 500kg less)... then the force pulling on it would be ~612.5N for each of the eight men if they were pulling it. As a comparison, one man pulling me on a rubber mat over concrete would be pulling with ~627.2N, so I'd say it is doable.

    (PS. I am assuming a constant speed)
    thank you for taking the time to do this. I'm going to have a look at it tomorrow when I'm less tired.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Xander67 View Post
    ahh,

    maybe they knew something that the ancient Egyptians knew? Maybe we will finally learn how the Ancient Mayans and the other Ancient Peoples were able to lift 200 ton rocks so high in the air with such precision?

    would be nice to find that one out considering our current mechanical capabilities wouldn't even come close to anything like that...

    COPPER , they used copper tools to cut the rocks and then floated them downstream on wooden logs

    I love how Archaeology tries to explain it..
    Yeah. Getting back to Atlantis etc, I wouldn't have a problem necessarily with them finding advanced technology. After all, the first steam engine was invented during the first century AD and then abandoned for a while.

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

    I think to make a big impact within science though, you would need to find things like: artefacts which are impossible to make given current understanding of science/technology; a material which has an unknown element in it not corresponding to the periodic table or has contradictory properties (e.g. something as strong/tough/(dense?) as steel but floats on water as a solid block) - if these are logically possible; a manual of techniques, like a Reiki manual, but enhancing abilities of, say, levitation (by thought/will) rather than healing, producing strong empirical evidence.

    As for societies, I don't personally know whether Utopias possible or not, but I would say there's definitely room for improvement from what we have today. They might have had advanced systems of psychology and/or energetic healing, for example.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    New Jersey
    Age
    50
    Posts
    33,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolixte View Post
    But the thing is... you can do it. It's fairly basic physics actually. You just have to reduce the coefficients of static and kinetic friction between the block and the ground. I'm going to see if I can find some numbers so I can show you what I mean. It's how one man can pull the engine of a train.

    Lots of things sound like bullshit that aren't.
    Does your theory take into account the sandy desert surface? as in the sands of the Desert in Egypt which they would be pulling this engine?

    It is a great postulate though, and I am open to it.. thank you for taking the time to look into this.
    11 Year Member
    Forum Guide for
    Astrology and the UFO & Extraterrestrial forums.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    948
    Yeah, I agree. I think this is interesting.

    What would you (Jolixte) say was the maximum angle realistically that the model could cope with on a slope (going both upwards and downwards) on a smooth and perfectly straight concrete surface?

    Thanks

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    7,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Xander67 View Post
    Does your theory take into account the sandy desert surface? as in the sands of the Desert in Egypt which they would be pulling this engine?

    It is a great postulate though, and I am open to it.. thank you for taking the time to look into this.
    The way I got the coef. was by assuming they used wood underneath the block and then I adjusted it a little to take into account more roughness (caused by whatever, sand, bumpy wood, etc) in between the surfaces. It's by no means a perfect approximation, but I'd have to test it experimentally to get that.


    Quote Originally Posted by green aventurine View Post
    Yeah, I agree. I think this is interesting.

    What would you (Jolixte) say was the maximum angle realistically that the model could cope with on a slope (going both upwards and downwards) on a smooth and perfectly straight concrete surface?

    Thanks
    I have to go to work soon, but I can probably tell you by tonight sometime.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •