Well watch this movie and imagine at a bigger scale, and you can lift anything.

http://io9.com/scientist...mp;utm_medium=socialflow

Yes, indeed, we are finally gaining knowledge that has been lost. It is a great baby step that will lead to the radical shift in perspective. No, the pyramids were not built by slaves with ropes.

Unfortunately, things don't just scale up like that. The mass of an object (and therefore how hard it is to move) increases with the third power of the scale factor. For example, if you double the size of an object, it weighs 8 times as much (assuming constant density). Scale those tiny beads up to something the size of a pyramid block and they weigh maybe a billion times as much, and therefore require a billion times as much energy to achieve the same effect. I have doubts that such energy resources exist in even this technological age, especially because at some point the medium for sound (air) will become non-linear in its response to changes in pressure and so the effect will become less pronounced as the energy increases because the air becomes less efficient at transmitting high-energy sound. In addition, these effects are only present under tightly-controlled conditions.

No, the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by paid employees of the pharaoh. It was a prestigious occupation where the workers were given food, medical attention, and housing. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to believe that human muscle and intelligence could have build such monuments. Just because we can't figure out exactly how they did it doesn't mean it was ultrasound or aliens.

Not from our current, extremely limited perspective, but give it time. And no one said aliens built the pyramids, at least I didn't, but if you are not aware that we once had greater knowledge of such things than we do now, keep looking. Civilization has, in my view, risen and fallen more than once. Victors and conquering armies write the history books, and our history has been revised and edited to meet certain agendas (let us not forget that school children were once taught that Christopher Columbus was a hero, but we now know he was a monster, and that is very recent history revisionism) Sound has been used as a weapon and a tool of creation. Sound came first. Sound is power. At a concert, the sound an audience generates can uplift, or it can brings walls toppling down (metaphorically speaking).

Like I said, this is a baby step to recovering lost knowledge the sands of time have turned over with the Hoe of Forgetfulness.

Well... I'd rather take a civilization that can build skyscrapers with indoor plumbing, air-conditioning, and wi-fi hotspots. But I guess pyramids are a neat trick, too.

Wise words.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Yes, I agree, sounds very legit, but we still don't know why were they made, and according to the archaeologists :


3 blocks/min very impressive. So i say they must had some kind of advance technology or the estimated time suggested by archaeologists its wrong, and that means every other time estimated to other thing , like everything else, its wrong. For example when the dinosaurs lived.

I do not follow this, if it is found out that one group of scientists made the wrong hypothesis then suddenly all scientists are wrong?

And "like everything else, its wrong"? I would like to remind you that we embrace the scientific method here and that any unfounded bashing is not allowed here.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Yes, his man power only opinion sounds pretty. But, again, this is from the modernly known scientific perspective. Granted, I'm one to think outside the box, or pyramid, and clearly I'm a mystic so my views are automatically looney bin. I just suggest leaving all options on the table, man power and lost technology combined seems reasonable to me. There's really nothing mystical to suggest sound could have helped build the pyramids. All mysticism is simply science we do not yet understand, and debating the value of one over the other is fruitless. Until science marries the mystic, and vis versa, this will always be a divisive issue. Quantum physics is now trying to prove the existence of an after life, which is a great step toward unity.


If sound can shatter glass, it is reasonable to postulate that sound can also lift that glass up. I know, glass and stone are very different densities, but, like the super computers of old that took up an entire room and could only perform the most rudimentary calculations, look where we've come in a few short years, where we all carry much more powerful computers in our pockets than was used to send us to the moon; the scientists levitating these tiny objects can one day, perhaps, evolve into much larger things.
Denial of the possibility is denial of the will to seek out new vistas of understanding. Imagine vibrating an object so fast that it temporarily separates the molecules into their natural lighter-than-air state, and having the capability to keep these molecules in the general shape they were in, without scattering them; you could then conceivably place this mass of molecules and atoms, which is all we are, where you wanted, then shut this sound vibration off and allow the object to become dense again. Thinking outside the box.

Well, sorry i offended, i lake in english explications i kind do my best to explain something but don't end as i expect , dint refer to all of the , just the one dating exact periods of time when something happend. Hop

I'm still trying to figure out why I saw a big Egyptian pyramid in hyperspace if they're simple creations of man. I'm not positing this as an argument for non-human pyramids, just noting an observation. Obviously there are many things in hyperspace that humans are capable of building (with matter) like houses and furniture and whatnot, but even if we can agree that man built the pyramids, I don't think we're going to arrive at any kind of consensus as to what their function(s) is(are).

Consider that hyperspace is also a creation of man. The imagination is the most powerful tool in all of creation.

I think there is a distinction to be made between the denial of possibility and denial of probability. It would be irrational to suggest that we can know for certain that something isn't possible. When most people claim something is not possible, they really mean that it is improbable in a practical sense.

The idea that Ancient Egyptians had computer technology sufficient to utilize sound to construct the pyramids is highly improbable. There is no direct or indirect evidence of this. One would reasonably expect a civilization with this level of technology and record keeping to leave evidence.

The difficulty explaining the construction of the pyramids does not automatically grant all theories equal probability.



There is nothing inherently valuable about suggesting it either. The human mind and discourse have a finite amount of time in which to understand their existence in the universe. To accomplish this, we have to distinguish what is probable and what is improbable. That is the sole purpose of science.



I would suggest: Denial of the probable is the denial of the will to seek out new vistas of understanding. If we believe all ideas are equally probable, we can't say we understand anything in a valid sense can we.

Ah, but you are still thinking in twentieth century terms. You think because we have computers, therefore any previously advanced civilization must also use electrical computer technology. Perhaps there are others ways humans could have evolved if indeed previous advanced civilizations have existed, one not dependent completely on technology as we understand it today. Consider the technology of the human mind has power we no longer have access to, save a few monks in the mountains who can levitate their bodies and whatnot. Or the telekinetic that can move a paper clip a fraction of an inch. The human machine is powerful, much more so than computers. Computers are a handy extension of our minds; if we were all connected via telepathy, we would not need the internet. Big if, sure, but big ifs create all things.

And what evidence could the sands of time not erase? A simple EMP could wipe out all of our computer data; couple that with weather wiping away our cities like an etch a sketch, we would forget everything, all traces of math, science and history would be gone, and we would be plunged back to hunter gatherers; and perhaps a few old ones who remembered us would speak about us as myth and legend. We would be the new Atlantis, as it were.

All evidence I have seen suggests that is the most reasonable thing to think. If a civilization had advanced technologies, it would have computers (or analogous thinking machines). They would have very likely progressed through predictable types of technologies. Our species is not old. The evidence would still be in the ground.

It is very common to see convergence in problem solving methods. That is, the same ideas get discovered independently over and over again. Calculus was invented at least twice, for instance.

Convergence has been seen in evolution (natures super computer). There are specific solutions to problems that are tremendously more probable than alternatives. The eye, among many biological features, has evolved many times over (50-100 says wikipedia). Recently, it has been found that convergence can extend right into genes themselves. Not only can organisms evolve similar phenotypic solutions to problems but they sometimes evolve the exact same genes independently!

Check out this recent article in nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679


It is clear that fundamental problems of existing in nature lead to very specific solutions. Thus I will claim we have clear evidence that the process of discovery is nonrandom. There is 'low hanging fruit' in every discipline that directs the focus and progress of discovery. It is highly improbable that an ancient civilization would discover quantum physics prior to classical physics, for instance.

Consider a relatively simple algorithm was used to 'discover' the laws of physics by observing a swinging double pendulum.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/


It seems like we didn't discover the laws of physics and mathematics because of some entrenched historical bias. We discovered them because they're the best way to describe the data given our abilities. A previous civilization of humans would have found the same things in basically the same order.

Well, as long as you're so certain. I have no interest in pointless circular debating. Cherio, mate.

I can also confirm that the Pyramids were not built by Slaves, but indeed were built by paid workers.
My sister is an Archaeologist, hehe.
Although these days, much of Archaeology is about surveying a site as a legal requirement before raping the land of its natural resources (mining)

No offense, but other archaeologists "confirm" that the pyramids were built by slaves, so who are we to believe? What evidence can your sister offer that is so compelling (note I'm not arguing against the point, I'm merely hunting for some stronger supporting evidence).

I like your thinking, enjoy your promotion to full member.


Kind regards,

The Traveler