I get the point you're making, but I think you're using a somewhat short-sighted definition of "better". For instance, the beam weapon. Yes, I could make a high-powered, highly accurate laser weapon and fry you on the spot, IF I had an army of technicians, factories, power plants, engineers, and physicists to help me out. But long before I could arrange all of that, you could have fried me with your much simpler arrangement of mirrors. So which one is "better"?
I had a similar reaction to the whole "dimensional" aspect of this. It sounds very interesting but the descriptions were sort of vague. So, I followed the links to relevant articles and papers and read those too. I think I have a bit more understanding of what they're on about, now.
The stuff about "collapsing a dimension" is basically saying that we expect 3D objects to always have 3D effects or interactions--so for example, when a magnetic field is being emitted from an object that has length, width, and depth; we expect the field to have length, width, and depth as well--but this is not the case with this material when it is cooled to near-absolute zero. The magnetic field it emits is collapsed in one of its dimensions.
They are theorizing that this happens because of layering. The paint crystallizes into a bunch of very thin sheets or layers, and all the atoms in a given layer are in alignment with each other, but not necessarily in alignment with the atoms in the layers above and below. Since magnetic fields are a product of atomic alignment, the magnetic field emitted by a given layer does not combine with the fields emitted by the layers above and below it. So the field has length and width, but no depth.
Since every layer is emitting a magnetic field like this, the overall effect is described not as a two dimensional magnetic field--there is depth, because the fields are stacked just like the layers of paint are--but a field that has been collapsed in one of its dimensions.
Not sure if that makes it more clear what they are talking about, lol. Describing three dimensional and two dimensional things in a one-dimensional medium(text is linear, only one dimension) is not easy.
While ancients did some things fine, better is something more controversial
Hydro technology? Yes in some points. Like unpowered water transferr. Though why to do so in modern times when we have power pumps and pressurized pipes. Damming technology nowadays is far in advance any ancients could ever have dreamed about. 2. Steel. Modern metallurgy is more science than art. We have finely tuned temperatures, finely tuned additives and so on. For example: Try making light weight gun barrel from ancient steel and you would quickly be very sorry. 3. Concrete, yes Romans did long lifed concrete, though modern buildings are usually intentionally made short lived. If we really wanted we could make long life concrete. And even our limited age stuff has superior strength. As it is usually rebarred and pre-tensioned. 4. Roads. Pre-modern roads needed to withstand quite light loads. Modern passenger car weights more than most of animal-powered carts, and 60-ton trailer trucks way much more. That kind of loads generally also degrade road bedding fast. As gravel in bedding tends to pounded to sand by masses involved. And road builders tend to have limited budgets, so they cannot be done with all available technological finesse. 9. Astronomy: Yes ancients could finely follow movements of stars and planets, but what they knew cannot really be compared with modern knowledge of cosmos. 10. Weapons: Modern weapons while they can deal mass destruction in unprecedented scale, they also can deal nearly surgical accuracy from vast ranges. And beam weapon mentioned in article can be easily reconstructed and surpassed. Even solar powered one. As modern parabolic mirrors can project more intense head over bigger range. And artificially powered high power laser could easily ignite wooden ship over great range.
In Vedic literature references do exist where people lived for 800-1000 years. What was a year? Can’t assume it was the same as now. But I do know from personal experience that certain shakties exist in our body. Think about how the body heals itself. What makes it heal? What was Hippocrates talking about? Concentrating 4-5 hours a day, after 20 years, I’m getting closer to the truth. Faint but unmistakable stirrings . . . . . To know what it is, you’ve to know the concept of space density and the sameness of the human and the cosmos. Sounds unscientific but experientially true. Let me categorically state that the human body is the most intelligent entity, known so far in the entire universe! So look after it! //Ournewscience.com/
The seals resemble in complexity the seals you see in Sumerian and Akkadian digs. The Indus Valley civilization lies pretty close to modern day Iran, so why not a link with ancient Persia or Elam pre-cultures. Zoroastrianism has similar roots as Hinduism, reversing the roles of some important god figures, like the devas.
On seals, short writing can refer to a name or household.
The article says Shakespeare bought a home with 20 rooms and 10 fireplaces for 120 pounds and then says that comes to $60,000 today. A 20 room house would cost millions anywhere in the US and even more in England, with its tight real estate market.
I think they must have compared monetary values for other goods, and real estate must have cost less then. 10 years salary of a school teacher would not buy a 20 room house today.
The article says Shakespeare bought a home with 20 rooms and 10 fireplaces for 120 pounds and then says that comes to $60,000 today. A 20 room house would cost millions anywhere in the US and even more in England, with its tight real estate market.
I think they must have compared monetary values for other goods, and real estate must have cost less then. 10 years salary of a school teacher would not buy a 20 room house today.
I'm not a non-believer... I'm just talking about this one cloth.
Or are you joking... because that would be a funny comment you made. And yes, if they dig the Ark of the Covenant out of King Tut's tomb... that would be something. :-) Although, the Egyptians used similar ark boxes, also carried on poles containing an icon or statue or other sacred objects the priests would haul out for processions. So... one would need to look inside--beware of face melting though! ;-)
So... help my poor, poor, much-lacking imagination here. ;-)
I've yet to get anyone here who objects to this observation to simply give this a try. (Yes, I have tried this.):
Find a cloth you can feel free to mark up--it will need to be wide. Lay it over your face, or the face of someone else. Now mark where the eyes, nose, hairline, jawline are while draped over a face. Then lay it flat. It will look absurdly and comically wide.
Obviously--as anyone will see who has the argumentative courtesy to take the 2 minutes it might take to try that--a direct contact (say chemically or heat or any sort of radiation (known or unknown) would not make a proportional image when the cloth is laid flat.
So, What mystic rays or whatever, can one imagine emanating from all topological points on a 3D head that wander off, taking an exponentially precise, specific, paths to create an image on that draped cloth that winds up looking in proportion when laid flat?
I'm not a skeptic arguing that mystical things don't happen. I'm just pointing out a major overlooked problem with THIS cloth that's really an immediate deal-killer.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
I get the point you're making, but I think you're using a somewhat short-sighted definition of "better". For instance, the beam weapon. Yes, I could make a high-powered, highly accurate laser weapon and fry you on the spot, IF I had an army of technicians, factories, power plants, engineers, and physicists to help me out. But long before I could arrange all of that, you could have fried me with your much simpler arrangement of mirrors. So which one is "better"?
I had a similar reaction to the whole "dimensional" aspect of this. It sounds very interesting but the descriptions were sort of vague. So, I followed the links to relevant articles and papers and read those too. I think I have a bit more understanding of what they're on about, now.
The stuff about "collapsing a dimension" is basically saying that we expect 3D objects to always have 3D effects or interactions--so for example, when a magnetic field is being emitted from an object that has length, width, and depth; we expect the field to have length, width, and depth as well--but this is not the case with this material when it is cooled to near-absolute zero. The magnetic field it emits is collapsed in one of its dimensions.
They are theorizing that this happens because of layering. The paint crystallizes into a bunch of very thin sheets or layers, and all the atoms in a given layer are in alignment with each other, but not necessarily in alignment with the atoms in the layers above and below. Since magnetic fields are a product of atomic alignment, the magnetic field emitted by a given layer does not combine with the fields emitted by the layers above and below it. So the field has length and width, but no depth.
Since every layer is emitting a magnetic field like this, the overall effect is described not as a two dimensional magnetic field--there is depth, because the fields are stacked just like the layers of paint are--but a field that has been collapsed in one of its dimensions.
Not sure if that makes it more clear what they are talking about, lol. Describing three dimensional and two dimensional things in a one-dimensional medium(text is linear, only one dimension) is not easy.
While ancients did some things fine, better is something more controversial
2. Steel. Modern metallurgy is more science than art. We have finely tuned temperatures, finely tuned additives and so on. For example: Try making light weight gun barrel from ancient steel and you would quickly be very sorry.
3. Concrete, yes Romans did long lifed concrete, though modern buildings are usually intentionally made short lived. If we really wanted we could make long life concrete. And even our limited age stuff has superior strength. As it is usually rebarred and pre-tensioned.
4. Roads. Pre-modern roads needed to withstand quite light loads. Modern passenger car weights more than most of animal-powered carts, and 60-ton trailer trucks way much more. That kind of loads generally also degrade road bedding fast. As gravel in bedding tends to pounded to sand by masses involved. And road builders tend to have limited budgets, so they cannot be done with all available technological finesse.
9. Astronomy: Yes ancients could finely follow movements of stars and planets, but what they knew cannot really be compared with modern knowledge of cosmos. 10. Weapons: Modern weapons while they can deal mass destruction in unprecedented scale, they also can deal nearly surgical accuracy from vast ranges. And beam weapon mentioned in article can be easily reconstructed and surpassed. Even solar powered one. As modern parabolic mirrors can project more intense head over bigger range. And artificially powered high power laser could easily ignite wooden ship over great range.
Thanks so much for the follow up. A quick search on International Union of Archetecs + Caral was all it took to find more info. Good reading!
Wonderful that they are (did?) use what they found at Caral to present in a letter to the UN climate talks in Paris.
Thanks again!
My last visit there produced an extraordinary photograph that has appeared also in the Fortean Times
https://zenandtheartoftightropewalking.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/miracle-...
No. While the dating remains controversial, numerous historians, archaeologists and archaeoastronomers stand by this dating and so do we.
15000 years old? You've added one too many zeros.
Pyramid health
In Vedic literature references do exist where people lived for 800-1000 years. What was a year? Can’t assume it was the same as now. But I do know from personal experience that certain shakties exist in our body. Think about how the body heals itself. What makes it heal? What was Hippocrates talking about? Concentrating 4-5 hours a day, after 20 years, I’m getting closer to the truth. Faint but unmistakable stirrings . . . . . To know what it is, you’ve to know the concept of space density and the sameness of the human and the cosmos. Sounds unscientific but experientially true. Let me categorically state that the human body is the most intelligent entity, known so far in the entire universe! So look after it! //Ournewscience.com/
Fascinating - thank you! Love mysteries and, as we'll probably never know the truth of it, that’s what it will probably remain.
What a lovely article - love the idea of it being a romantic motivation!
I wish to notify of the meanings of these two sanskrit terms:
Anu means molecule.
Paramanu means atom.
The seals resemble in complexity the seals you see in Sumerian and Akkadian digs. The Indus Valley civilization lies pretty close to modern day Iran, so why not a link with ancient Persia or Elam pre-cultures. Zoroastrianism has similar roots as Hinduism, reversing the roles of some important god figures, like the devas.
On seals, short writing can refer to a name or household.
The article says Shakespeare bought a home with 20 rooms and 10 fireplaces for 120 pounds and then says that comes to $60,000 today. A 20 room house would cost millions anywhere in the US and even more in England, with its tight real estate market.
I think they must have compared monetary values for other goods, and real estate must have cost less then. 10 years salary of a school teacher would not buy a 20 room house today.
The article says Shakespeare bought a home with 20 rooms and 10 fireplaces for 120 pounds and then says that comes to $60,000 today. A 20 room house would cost millions anywhere in the US and even more in England, with its tight real estate market.
I think they must have compared monetary values for other goods, and real estate must have cost less then. 10 years salary of a school teacher would not buy a 20 room house today.
I'm not a non-believer... I'm just talking about this one cloth.
Or are you joking... because that would be a funny comment you made. And yes, if they dig the Ark of the Covenant out of King Tut's tomb... that would be something. :-) Although, the Egyptians used similar ark boxes, also carried on poles containing an icon or statue or other sacred objects the priests would haul out for processions. So... one would need to look inside--beware of face melting though! ;-)
All you non believers will soon change your mind about this when they dig the Ark out of King Tuts tomb. Wake up, we are in the Revelation!
Yeah, I also like the morphic resonance theory. Sheldrake is an interesting guy.
So... help my poor, poor, much-lacking imagination here. ;-)
I've yet to get anyone here who objects to this observation to simply give this a try. (Yes, I have tried this.):
Find a cloth you can feel free to mark up--it will need to be wide. Lay it over your face, or the face of someone else. Now mark where the eyes, nose, hairline, jawline are while draped over a face. Then lay it flat. It will look absurdly and comically wide.
Obviously--as anyone will see who has the argumentative courtesy to take the 2 minutes it might take to try that--a direct contact (say chemically or heat or any sort of radiation (known or unknown) would not make a proportional image when the cloth is laid flat.
So, What mystic rays or whatever, can one imagine emanating from all topological points on a 3D head that wander off, taking an exponentially precise, specific, paths to create an image on that draped cloth that winds up looking in proportion when laid flat?
I'm not a skeptic arguing that mystical things don't happen. I'm just pointing out a major overlooked problem with THIS cloth that's really an immediate deal-killer.
Best wishes!
@Allen
Really? Even mystical or magical means would require the cloth to be flat? How’s that?
I do believe that you, sir, are suffering from a severe lack of imagination.
Pages