Could they not have used torches and just cleaned the soot up? Or used mirrors to direct the light like in the fifth element?
I'm stoned to the bone and totally dig ancient egypt so i'm gonna watch that youtube vid and report back
[quote name='"DenialTwist"'] This is not a religion thread, please remain on topic or jog on.[/quote] Lol kk I was responding to another poster. Shouldnt this epic wealth of information be in the science and nature section? There isnt much spirituality OR philosophy present. Keep jogging.
[quote name='"FormerPothead"']I'm stoned to the bone and totally dig ancient egypt so i'm gonna watch that youtube vid and report back[/quote] A formerpothead thats stoned to the bone? Nice
Sam, I'm not looking to go one up, I'm looking for a fair debate. The Egyptians having electricity is a big statement, with so many implications that could change the way that we look at the world. In the interest of that debate I would much prefer relevant information rather than convenient information. An oil lamp. If it were an open air flame it would show up in the paint samples. It would have had to burn for a considerable amount of time for them to finish their paintings. It could have been encased in glass, any glass lamps found? Regardless, I am going to attribute the Egyptians the same skills as the middle ages and the renaissance and in the restoration of renaissance art, the atmospheric conditions at the time of the painting are revealed. How colours oxidise and so on. A lamp in a small room... I am familiar with Zhai Hawass, unfortunately the introduction to the article doesn't give me many clues as to the extent of the paper, and I would rather spend the 30 bucks on green. The soot is only part of the hypothesis. In the Atlantis Blueprint, Graham Hancock went on about the Egyptians using Brown's Gas. http://brownsgas.com/ I am more interested in the connection between the pyramid and the Tesla machine. That's where the proof is. So your education "revolves around trying to disprove assumed narratives." I went to school, they said this is how things are. I repeated diligently. Isn't that what education is? Or did you go to a special school? Your core belief system is not set to accept these kinds of ideas. It is not possible for the Egyptians to have electricity. As for grant money...who puts you in charge of what is researched and what isn't? The concept that the world is round was the hypothesis of a fringe group. Most notable discoveries have been the result of fringe groups. Recap the pyramids...what a sight that would be. It should be in both forums There are philosophical and spiritual implications from this... After. First they put the stones in place, then they plastered over them to give them a seamless surface and then painted on to the plaster. As for mirrors they wouldn't work. Same reasons you don't put a mirror in your grow room.
[quote name='"DenialTwist"'] It should be in both forums There are philosophical and spiritual implications from this... [/quote] Im interested. Such as?
Could it be possible that they build 1 layer at a time, constantly leaving an, "open ceiling," to let in light? Is it a solid fact that the paintings were created after construction? I had a feeling that the mirrors could not direct enough light to be a viable source. Could they possibly have used the mirrors as a spot light, of sorts? Not so much ambient light, but direct reflection? Did they have silver mirrors? I know they were very active in copper usage; what about silver? Silver mirrors would work a bit better than polished copper.
Let's see if you even utilize the information given to you. You say that as if you've looked into research on the subject. It may be convenient for you to utilize your hypothesis as your explanation, but without any actual observations, it's still speculation. Your point being? Actually no, an oil lamp does not require glass. Your last two questions just tell me that you really have never used these things... Also, if you're demanding PHYSICAL EVIDENCE -- where are those Egyptians batteries? where are the remnants of the arc lights? it's very strange how you apply a different standard of evidence to my claims than you apply to your own claims. Sorry? I understand the $30 is a little steep, and my access to academic periodicals is a perk of my job. But understand, if you're unwilling or incapable of doing the adequate research; you probably shouldn't be making claims. Because they're fundamentally and demonstrably wrong. I mean you can claim all you want, but the reality is, is that you're ignorant on the subject and you know you are. Well you know, I'd be really interested to look at this link of yours -- but it creates NEW claims, when you have still yet to address the full rebuttal to all of you ORIGINAL claims. I've noticed in my experience that if you start addressing new ideas and back-burner the old ideas; the claimee tends to ignore those old ideas; allowing them the cognitive dissonance to think they proved themselves right by having their detractor move passed them See above. My condolences, those sound like atrocious teachers. Some is, some isn't. I'd argue that's what the bad kind is like. I find it interesting how you talk as if your education is over. One never stops learning. Actually I did go to a special school, and I did a lot of it. Yeah, pretty much. I don't like to get into the details of my education, credentials or profession -- but informed critical analysis is a major part of all of that. Are you asking who puts "me" in charge, or who puts those individuals in charge? It depends on who you go to for grant money, your discipline, your type of research, your quality of research, your resources, you institution, your experience, etc. etc. Bottom line, in the case of academic research; these publishing committee and research review boards want to see tantalizing or utilitarian research, done for cost, by the book. Dunno I'm getting kind of ranty here - what exactly did you want to know? Whilst many notably discoveries have (at one time), been the belief of a fringe group; it is not true that all fringe ideas become proven true. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of fringe ideas always remain fringe ideas. The relevant point, is that there is almost no academic or public research value to acknowledging the demonstrably flawed hypothesis of a fringe group, and then spending good money to research it. And again, it comes back to the burden of evidence. Aristotle thought the world was round, but because he had the physical evidence to demonstrate it, not because it seemed like a nice thing to believe.
I always thought they used mirrors too.. I watched a mythbusters episode once and they tested how well mirrors light up mummy tombs and they actually lit up the room pretty well. I mean nothing compared to electricity, but it was enough to easily see 15-20 feet in front of you. I'm pretty sure they used a warehouse if I remember correctly.
From Wikipedia: ------- "Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is a principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false." ------- Just a thought...
a battery is a fairly simple chemistry concept. a simple battery could have been created by experimentation well before chemistry was understood in any scientific sense. i don't doubt that they might have had simple batteries, but the real question is what they would use the electricity for. i'm skeptical even if the inefficient filament, but it's probably possible. i can't imagine it being a very impressive light source, though. it isn't as if they were powering alien craft or anything. if they had an anarchist's cookbook, though, they might have had some interesting ways of using it.
Lmao, you really got so mad as to neg rep me 3 days later for clearing up your misconception? I just didn't understand what makes you think I don't understand oxidation? Like you said, you're the one treating this thread as an information source on light bulbs, right? Talk about an unwarranted grudge, haha. I obviously understand conversation, as I responded to you every time. I think you're the one who forgot the write me back on the subject? Your sarcasm hints at your arrogance, and the neg rep confirms it. Don't be mad I told you not to act like you know what you're talking about. You're the one who admits you don't. Learn to have a conversation leading to a common goal; it's not an argument.
actually it was this line that got you the neg rep who is it that sounds arrogant? me asking about the guesses i am making? or you deciding who should and who should not comment Meursault talking about what it mite take to make such a light or you telling us what the discussion should focus on