The Egyptians had electricity.

Lmao...I love it when stoners describe everything about an object because they can't think of the name. So much more poetic than just saying "It was mirrors."

 

Well, assuming that an enclosure is 100% without-a-doubt necessary to make a lightbulb (which I'm still just assuming, cuz I'm no....uhhh....lightsmith myself,) there are lots of things that would let some light through, like thin slices of Obsidian or something. They're just not as good as glass as we know it, of course.

Whether the Egyptians had such materials, I don't know (what am I, an egyptsmith?) and whether or not any of those materials would be pliable enough to make the kind of enclosure needed, I also don't know. But not all of it has to be see-through, just part of it....picture a flashlight kind-of-dealie, with some airtight material comprising the body, and a slice of obsidian (or w/e) serving as the lens...

 

All this and yet I still have trouble convincing my brother in law that cannabis users are normal rational people.

 

thats just cus most of the people in every "group" suck.....and give the rest a bad name

 

I wanted to give this video a formal response, in hope that it is valuable as an exemplar of critical inquiry.

DenialTwist said "it puts a really strong case foward that the Egyptians had electricity.", and I will argue that it doesn't, at all, and would caution against accepting such spurious claims at face value.

Spurious Claim 1:
"The idea that civilizations progress from a primitive state to a more advanced one is a fallacy... that evolutionists try to apply to history. If one abandons evolutionist nonsense and prejudice (...)"

This is the very premise of the video, and it is already flawed. Firstly, the idea of social progress or technological development existing as some kind of unilinear progression is indeed a fallacy. It is call Orthogeneic cultural evolution... But not from 'evolutionists'; this refers not to an academic discipline like evolutionary biology (they don't produce research on this subject). This term evolutionist is a political term to denote a worldview; which immediately hints at politically-satiating motivations for the follow conclusions presented lated in the video.

This fallacious idea was not introduced by the theory of biological evolution; it pre-dated it significantly, and is heavily reflected in the writings of colonialists during the 15th and 16th century, and to a lesser extent, in the jingoist propaganda of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and pretty well any aggressive and plutocratic empire in human history.

The idea of cultural relativity, and the rejection of orthogenesis was actually directly inspired by Charles Darwin's approach to qualitative observation, Franz Boas championed this for cultural anthropology.

This is MORE than a massive oversight, this is an invalidation of the authors' thesis.

Spurious Claim 2:
"Electricity was originally generated and widely used in Ancient Egypt"

The filmmaker then goes on to cite the Baghdad Battery. These have only been found in Mesopotamia - not in Egpyt. There has been considerable debate over whether or not these actually constitute batteries. The argument of "Arc Lights" are even more spurious, with egyptologists not only refuting but providing simpler explanations. There is lots of reading on both of these claims, but bottom line; the physical evidence does not exists, and even the speculation is shoddy.

"No soot has been found in the quarters of the pyramids, or the tombs of the kings... because these areas were lit with electricity."

This is a plain lie. To an individual who has no experience with field research, or has little-to-no education on the subject could definitely find this believable.

Research reports like this detail heavy layers of soot in tombs, and the obstacles it presents to researchers.

Salted oil wicked produce very little soot, I don't see what's the problem with that idea. Y'know the same way they illuminating palaces.




EDIT -- I can't keep listening to this crap. You want more debunked? Ask.

 

You actually watched the video? You are a much more patient man than I lmao.

 

thanks sam! i was hoping someone had some "facts" on this idea!!!!!

 

I'm a big fan of juxtaposition.

I've never really been motivated by my own convenience.

I think critical inquiry, even into the most mundane of subjects, is valuable. There is a lot more constructive stuff I can do other than internet message boards, but everybody has their time-wasters.

Low-hanging fruit maybe? Dunno - I usually do not comment, or briefly so, on the threads that I agree with.

 

They also had aliens

 

i like reading sams opinions around here.....
he always provides some verifiable facts

 

I don't think the discussion should be focused on how high tech their lights were, but if they could even do it. I don't think they're TOO worried about oxidation of the filament; if they had recently invented a portable light, they'd be more interested in getting more filaments, IMHO, haha.

I'm just saying, if you're used to living in the dark, even a dim light would do wonders.

 

if they could even do it.
is exactly what we were talking about.....

i dont know if you understand what was meant by oxidation of the filament...
we are not talking about oxidization like the paint on your car....or your old iron pipes.....these things take time.....
i think...(and i could be wrong-havent looked it up)that what was being described was a rapid oxidization....where the filament "burns up" because of the electricity flowing thru it....
and how the encasement was to keep the oxygen necessary for that type of burn away from the filament...
maybe

i dont really know what i am talking about ....and am making guesses based entirely on what i learned from this thread ...and looking at a modern lightbulb

 

There are heirogyphs depicting what appears to be a lightbulb.