Regardless of Egyptian ancient culture having static elecricity to have fun with, they did not have a genius inventor to transfer it to a system that amongst others could provide light, as in a lightbulb. It is a bit easy thinking of lightbulbs as a single invention. It actually required an entire system of distribution of electricity, transformers, metering, and not least production. Edison did not come up with a filament in a vacuum bulb that provided light. He came up with a system where energy could be distributed efficiently. That was his geniuos. The light thing was just the first application of it.
But can't you imagine a single bulb being powered by a few Baghdad batteries without having to have the whole grid?
That's the whole point of the discussion is it not? Whether or not it happened? There's some decent evidence that it was possible. You say it didn't happen but how can you know?
I don't really see any evidence, its just inferences. Saying they'd find soot if it was fire lighting the pyramids, wouldn't they find these power/light sources? Sam posted actual evidence of the soot, where they didn't show sources of the pyramids being soot-less. Also, they could have easily cleaned the pyramids when they were done and sealed them.
Possible, yes. Much is possible. But is it plausible? Considering there wasn't a grid in ancient Egypt, I'd say no. When the grid did happen in the US and later in Europe, it cought on rather fast due to the convenience of it. Such convenience can not be overlooked, so I don't think the actual benefitial repercussions of electricity ever entered the ancient egyptian mind. Sure it might have been fun causing some sparks at a magic show at the royal court, but that is about it. It did not get any further. If it did, we'd know.
You're stuck on the "grid" idea i think. i'm not talking about a grid. Why would one be needed for a relatively few pyramids? You would need light only at the site of construction. Portable. One or two or five Baghdad batteries and a primitive bulb is all they would've needed.
Yeees, but if that was so a grand idea that they got working, why did they stick with various vegetable and animal oil based alternatives? The simple answer is... They did not have a working electrical lightbulb, much less the infrastructure to support it. Hence they used fats and oils with a wick protruding from it to light their fire. To light their after dusk life. Sure the ancient egyptians did a lot of really amazing things, but when sand met rock so to speak, that is what they used. It was what was at hand, and what they got really skilled at using. To our continued amazement.
You're missing the point entirely, I was talking about if they could even do it.....you can't just make light from electricity magically, you need a fucking lightbulb of some kind last time I checked. I wanted to challenge the idea, and didn't even need to sit through the shitty youtube flick to do so. What's wrong with that?
wtf would these discussions even be if not for posts like yours and sams and zylarks........... i mean seriously? with no constructive realistic views....all we would have is a bunch of people gathering round an assumption and calling it truth if we are going to explore a possibility....shouldnt we explore all aspects of it realistically?
[quote name='"dirtydingusus"'] wtf would these discussions even be if not for posts like yours and sams and zylarks........... i mean seriously? with no constructive realistic views....all we would have is a bunch of people gathering round an assumption and calling it truth if we are going to explore a possibility....shouldnt we explore all aspects of it realistically?[/quote] Lol a gathering of people who believe other peoples assumptions then get mad when its challenged.
hey wait......dont they have those already in like every town/city...... they have a name for it too.......maybe
[quote name='"dirtydingusus"'] hey wait......dont they have those already in like every town/city...... they have a name for it too.......maybe[/quote] Lol yes. Sometimes multiples on the same road. There are 7 churches within a mile of my home. Goodness cant people get along??
34 churches in a town of under 25,000. We have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the NATION, home invasions and burglaries are on the rise, a growing gang problem, less and less "community" every day, etc. Yep, does a hell of a lot of good lol.
Today we require a grid to distribute electricity, but that is not an absolute as electricity can be transferred wirelessly. A grid is one method, not the only method. The theory put forward in the video is that the electricity was transferred via some wireless device and comparing the structure of the pyramid to a Tesla device. He makes a compelling case. I wonder how many of Tesla's free energy ideas are patented by those who don't want us to have free energy. I digress. If you stand at the top of a pyramid with a wet sponge it sparks. Fascinating. I would love to be able to test that out for myself. The soot was what sparked my imagination many years ago. Having visited my fair share of old buildings, like the catacombs under the vatican, you notice the effects of introducing torches in confined spaces. Smoke fills every crevice. It isn't the ultimate validator for the existence of electricity. I find it amusing that Sam needs to go off on such a rant because of it. So...the link that Sam posted. From what I gather about it, it relates to studies done on the tombs of Ahmose, Second Prophet of Menkheperre. Turns out he reigned from 1479 to 1425 BC. The Giza pyramid was around 2500 BC. We are talking about a completely different dynasty. The Giza pyramid was built during the Old Kingdom. Now we can't really be sure about what caused the Old Kingdom to come to an end, we speculate it was due to famine. Somehow this glorious civilisation ceased...only for later dynasties to come along and inherit what was there. They saw these great buildings, had no idea what they were for, and copied them. The idea of the Egyptians having electricity goes against your core belief systems, your education and so on. Challenging that belief system challenges you at your core. It becomes easier to discredit the new idea, rather than embracing the concept. The soot is simply what sparked my imagination years ago. That alone is not the ultimate validator to accept a concept as far reaching as having electricity. Cleaning them once they were done? Sure, it would show up in archeological restoration. Plus the link that Sam provided since the walls here are covered with a very thick black soot, apparently the result of burning and smoking in medieval times. The soot came later. It goes on...Fortunatey, because most of the hieroglyphs were thickly painted on the underlying plaster. You should be looking for traces of soot in the paint used. As the paint dries it would trap the smoke in. You are looking for any evidence to justify why you can not embrace this new concept. As long as it looks vaguely scientific then it's ok. Well, maybe we could look at scientific studies done on the Giza pyramid and not another one that came 1000 years later. The video goes on about applying Tesla free energy. Why the pyramids were coated the way they were. Read up on some Tesla. The soot is merely what sparked my imagination. If that is your validator then look for traces of smoke in the paint. When the paint dries, the smoke is absorbed, it happens often in medieval and renaissance art. Maybe you don't like me, maybe it's the subject but without watching it how can you say it is shitty? Challenging an idea is welcomed. As the idea put forward is in video format, I would suggest watching it in order to acquaint yourself with the idea presented so that at least you are aware of what you are challenging. There is not much objectivity or logic in what you are doing. Basically you're trolling. Challenging is welcomed. Bringing new ideas is encouraged. It's the manner in which you bring the idea forward. You should respect everyone's ideas. If you are not able to make a comment without the need to insult or mock, then you shouldn't really be posting. This is not a religion thread, please remain on topic or jog on.
Maybe you should comment a little less, if you know so little? You and Meursault were going on about filaments in a vacuum. Do you even know what light is? Do you even know that you can produce light without a vacuum? I think that someone seeing a glowing metal or carbon would be pretty interested in it's uses, especially if you're one of the first to see it. I know what oxidation is. We learned that in electronics in high school? Do you know the melting point of carbon graphite, sir? Or the oxidation rate using the current and voltage they used? No, because you don't even know if they had it, so how are you going to tell me that the carbon will oxidize too fast to be of any use? Like I said, I think even a dim, faint light for 5 minutes would be better than nothing if you had nothing to begin with. Do you know the minimal amount of energy needed to create a small amount of light? Yes, a C.G. filament will oxidize, but we AREN'T discussing how advanced their lights were; we're discussing if they even had them, let alone if they had light bulbs in a vacuum. I suggest you do a bit of tinkering in your garage, this weekend. Perhaps enroll in a chemistry or physics class. It really would NOT be that hard to make a light bulb if you already have glass, knowledge of carbon graphite, electricity, and conductors like copper and gold. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because someone owns a patent, doesn't mean they invented it.
A clean burning fuel for torches/lamps is much more likely than the use of electricity for illumination. The "Baghdad Battery" would have produced extremely weak current, and the highly insulating material bitumen completely covered the copper cylinder. This makes it likely that, though this "battery" was able to produce voltage, it was used for non-electrical purposes. In addition, there is no other equipment to support the use of electricity.
But just a couple days ago you told me to stop hiding behind objectivity and logic! Make up your damn mind sir! Also...as I said...I didn't need to watch the video to find a major flaw in your post....so I went ahead and started talking about that, to save 10 minutes of my life.....now I've spent over 10 minutes explaining that fact, so I hope you're happy...
Have you ever used an oil lamp? I'm glad I'm not the only one having fun! Interesting reasoning you have there. The problem is, is that you're relying on your own uninformed problem solving, and not actually doing the research. The link I provide you was (ironically,) for convenience. It was a free public source, courtesy of a publication project. If you want a reliable, informed, and detailed analysis; you're going to need access to an academic library, or slap down $30 for this article. The article makes specific mention of soot removal issues in the burial chambers of the Great Pyramid, constructed directly in your specified time period. It is authored by Zhai Hawass, one of the most preeminent egyptologists of the 21st century. I've gotta be honest, although I definitely find ancient history interesting, it doesn't really calculate into my "belief system" Nope, my education revolves around trying to disprove assumed narratives. Definitely true, but my reservation is in the burden of proof. I haven't seen any compelling hard evidence for what is being claims. So far, many of the plot holes you cannot address have been ignored. If you want to say my original source is invalid because it documents a tomb that came about ~1000 years after; how do you resolve the idea that the Baghdad Batteries, originated 1200 kilometers away and came about ~2000-2500 years later?? Your problem is not the ability to critically think - it's the standards to which you apply it. How do you figure? "Apparently" it did; I'll give you that one Why would that be useful for egyptologists to research? Who says that research doesn't exist? Why would they want to debunk the clearly flawed hypothesis of fringe groups? That's grant money that can go towards more excavation.