Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
nopeda

advanced aliens or ancient humans?

1,829 posts in this topic

Who are you to question me as to who I am to determine what is incorrect, or correct evidence? I am speaking on behalf of what is expected by the vast majority of people who ask you for proof to support your claims (and, I believe that most people here would agree with me). When people ask for PROOF, they want PROOF.

Yes, I am aware of this.

I was merely asking what your means of determining what a correct or incorrect interpretation of evidence is. Because, for instance, there are some here who have cited Egyptian hieroglyphs which they believe are evidence of extraterrestrials. I do not necessarily agree with all of them, however I would be interested to know what method you use to determine whether or not their interpretation is empirically correct or incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd let me, I have a great deal. So far though I've been interrupted at every turn.

My friend just directed me to this page: http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Advanced_Concepts.htm

I didn't have time to pore over the entire thing, but it seems to be a relatively good overview of some Hindu science, from what I could see.

You cannot have looked too hard.

Remember just a short while ago how I wanted to use the term religion with regards to Hinduism? What did you have to say there? This:

Hinduism is considered to be a religion by many in the West; an actual follower of the teachings and philosophy of Hinduism knows better.

And the links opening paragraph says:

The Vedas have guided Indian civilization for thousands of years. They are the pillars of Hinduism. "Veda is the source of all Dharma" declares Manusmirti (2.6.) There is no major religion on the planet, which has not been influenced by the Vedas. The creation stories of all major religions are based on Vedas. Though all other religions have forgotten their Vedic root or have been forgotten, there is one religion, Hinduism, that has kept the flame of the Vedic wisdom burning continuously. Vedas which means ' knowledge' contain a good deal of scientific knowledge that was lost over millennia, which needs to be recovered. The Vedic sages had discovered the subtle nature of reality, and had coded it in the form of the Vedas.

So how can this profess to know Hunduism, when you say if one calls it a religion, one really does not understand Hinduism.

Or are you picking and choosing what suits you? OR was this written by one from the west who "does not understand" and if so, why are you advocating it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot have looked too hard.

Remember just a short while ago how I wanted to use the term religion with regards to Hinduism? What did you have to say there? This:

Hinduism is considered to be a religion by many in the West; an actual follower of the teachings and philosophy of Hinduism knows better.

And the links opening paragraph says:

The Vedas have guided Indian civilization for thousands of years. They are the pillars of Hinduism. "Veda is the source of all Dharma" declares Manusmirti (2.6.) There is no major religion on the planet, which has not been influenced by the Vedas. The creation stories of all major religions are based on Vedas. Though all other religions have forgotten their Vedic root or have been forgotten, there is one religion, Hinduism, that has kept the flame of the Vedic wisdom burning continuously. Vedas which means ' knowledge' contain a good deal of scientific knowledge that was lost over millennia, which needs to be recovered. The Vedic sages had discovered the subtle nature of reality, and had coded it in the form of the Vedas.

So how can this profess to know Hunduism, when you say if one calls it a religion, one really does not understand Hinduism.

Or are you picking and choosing what suits you? OR was this written by one from the west who "does not understand" and if so, why are you advocating it?

It can, and has been called a religion. However, is the page not written in English--a Western language? The author here, a good Hindu scholar, is merely utilizing the vernacular of the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone told me something that was contrary to everything I believe, I would try my hardest to prove them right. If I cannot prove them right, then I try to prove them wrong. If I cannot prove them right or wrong, then I have no reason to change what I believe.

If you want, try to prove me right. Then wrong.

This is my own method, yes. You don't need to use it if you don't want to.

Great, lets get back to E=MC2 shall we? That shows you cannot just zip across the Universe, and that any travel will be slow or a one way trip. How are these Gods getting around the Universe?

Why do I anticipate a faith based answer?

Because I have reached that conclusion through open-minded and objective research. That's how.

Because you reached that conclusion ;) Now we are starting to hear the truth ;)

Now care to share this which you are asking us to believe on blind faith? Without any sort of proof or reasoning, you sound an awful lot like those religions you appear to find somewhat distasteful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can, and has been called a religion. However, is the page not written in English--a Western language? The author here, a good Hindu scholar, is merely utilizing the vernacular of the West.

So can you explain the point of your objection to my usage of the term, all the while knowing I am from the west? Where was that understanding at that point?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course everything is refutable, isn't it? In history in particular.

Is the composition of a water molecule refutable? No. Is the moons arrangement of craters refutable? No, it is what it is. SOme things are what they are. Empirical evidence is the strongest foundation man has as a benchmark for truthfulness.

That link to Hindu Science you left says:

While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple.”

Do you not find this incredibly inaccurate?

And I am not seeing the proof of extraterrestrials in that link. Only proof that people worked all this out for themselves.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd let me, I have a great deal. So far though I've been interrupted at every turn.

My friend just directed me to this page: http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Advanced_Concepts.htm

I didn't have time to pore over the entire thing, but it seems to be a relatively good overview of some Hindu science, from what I could see.

I am sure I speak for all when I ask you to feel free to ignore a post or two for the time being so that we may all see what you believe to be convincing evidence. All we have seen is much talk, some evidence would be a welcome addition. This excuse appears as stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, lets get back to E=MC2 shall we? That shows you cannot just zip across the Universe, and that any travel will be slow or a one way trip. How are these Gods getting around the Universe?

Why do I anticipate a faith based answer?

Because you reached that conclusion ;) Now we are starting to hear the truth ;)

Now care to share this which you are asking us to believe on blind faith? Without any sort of proof or reasoning, you sound an awful lot like those religions you appear to find somewhat distasteful.

The gods' method of transportation is quite simple: it is very similar to the concept today known as Alcubierre drive.

Space-time itself need not conform to the laws restricting the velocity of matter and energy--for instance, at the Big Bang, expansion occurred far faster than the speed of light.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the composition of a water molecule refutable? No. Is the moons arrangement of craters refutable? No, it is what it is. SOme things are what they are. Empirical evidence is the strongest foundation man has as a benchmark for truthfulness.

That link to Hindu Science you left says:

While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple.”

Do you not find this incredibly inaccurate?

And I am not seeing the proof of extraterrestrials in that link. Only proof that people worked all this out for themselves.

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Vimanas5.htm

This is one good page.

I am sure I speak for all when I ask you to feel free to ignore a post or two for the time being so that we may all see what you believe to be convincing evidence. All we have seen is much talk, some evidence would be a welcome addition. This excuse appears as stalling.

What? Please rephrase. I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gods' method of transportation is quite simple: it is very similar to the concept today known as Alcubierre drive.

Space-time itself need not conform to the laws restricting the velocity of matter and energy--for instance, at the Big Bang, expansion occurred far faster than the speed of light.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

May I ask how you know this is the mode of transport? If you know this much, may I venture into how the energy of several suns (or more - DR. Van Den Broeck managed to compute the energy needs down to as little as three solar masses!) is produced in a ship? That is what is required for warp concepts to work in order to bend space time.

I am actually quite aware of the concept. It would be good to now how these aliens manage to create a subluminal bubble, because without it, the drive is useless and there seems to be no way to keep the bubble up.

That is just one of the many problems with the drive. Hawking radiation forming in the centre of the ship will burn everything inside of it to a crisp. Or that you have to set down the "rail" for the drive to travel along meaning you have to get there before you can get there, the thickness of the crafts hull needed in immense and not workable, and Coule (LINK - D H Coule No Warp Drive) postulated that you have to build a drive to build a drive.

Going by the above, I take it that you have not read Stefano Finazzi's paper on the hypothetical Alcubierre drive concept either?

Please do not be asking me to take your word that your claim is fact. I need more than your word, and the Alcubierre Drive that we understand is not a workable concept. Nuclear propulsion remains to date the best concept man has postulated for interstellar travel. This method creates more questions than it answers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask how you know this is the mode of transport? If you know this much, may I venture into how the energy of several suns (or more - DR. Van Den Broeck managed to compute the energy needs down to as little as three solar masses!) is produced in a ship? That is what is required for warp concepts to work in order to bend space time.

I am actually quite aware of the concept. It would be good to now how these aliens manage to create a subluminal bubble, because without it, the drive is useless and there seems to be no way to keep the bubble up.

That is just one of the many problems with the drive. Hawking radiation forming in the centre of the ship will burn everything inside of it to a crisp. Or that you have to set down the "rail" for the drive to travel along meaning you have to get there before you can get there, the thickness of the crafts hull needed in immense and not workable, and Coule (LINK - D H Coule No Warp Drive) postulated that you have to build a drive to build a drive.

Going by the above, I take it that you have not read Stefano Finazzi's paper on the hypothetical Alcubierre drive concept either?

Please do not be asking me to take your word that your claim is fact. I need more than your word, and the Alcubierre Drive that we understand is not a workable concept. Nuclear propulsion remains to date the best concept man has postulated for interstellar travel. This method creates more questions than it answers.

I said that their transportation is similar to the Alcubierre concept. In that a "bubble" of warped space-time is generated. The means was evidently via the manipulation of the Higgs field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) through the use of dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass); a sort of anti-gravity, or negative energy. This is the chief means of operating the Alcubierre-esque mechanism. Energy is hardly a problem--they are said to be able to harness zero-point energy, nuclear energy, solar energy, antimatter energy, etc. They are after all a Type III civilization: they can do some very impressive things indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to give it a decent hearing. Really I did. But Anti Gravity Units, plans to build a flying saucer, which have not been used were hard enough to accept as there is again nothing short of the authors word to substantiate the magnificent claims, but the nonsense about Atlantis was more than enough. This link is a mis match of some script and a decent helping of imagination. I find it painful to see ancient texts being rewritten to accomodate a persons fantasy. That battle on the moon with airships is a more than amusing concept. I see even Alexander gets a mention. That too has been debated here. The claim has been dated back to 1959. - LINK the original source seems to be a book called book Stranger than Science. Surprise surprise, another tale exposed from a dodgy source. I find the link to have obvious inaccuracies.

What? Please rephrase. I don't understand.

Please feel free to ignore a post or two if you are being interrupted enough to not post evidence. Whilst I find the above reference unconvincing, it helps the conversation to see where you are getting these wild ideas from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that their transportation is similar to the Alcubierre concept. In that a "bubble" of warped space-time is generated. The means was evidently via the manipulation of the Higgs field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) through the use of dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass); a sort of anti-gravity, or negative energy. This is the chief means of operating the Alcubierre-esque mechanism. Energy is hardly a problem--they are said to be able to harness zero-point energy, nuclear energy, solar energy, antimatter energy, etc. They are after all a Type III civilization: they can do some very impressive things indeed.

Not a one of these sources comes close to the power requirements. You are not understanding what I am saying I think. It takes a minimum of 3 solar masses of energy. Three of our suns. Not nuclear energy, but a nuclear explosion the likes of which man can only comprehend by watching novas. I do not think you are comprehending the energy source required.

Not to be picky, but you skipped over the how do you know this question. May I impress upon you to answer that?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to give it a decent hearing. Really I did. But Anti Gravity Units, plans to build a flying saucer, which have not been used were hard enough to accept as there is again nothing short of the authors word to substantiate the magnificent claims, but the nonsense about Atlantis was more than enough. This link is a mis match of some script and a decent helping of imagination. I find it painful to see ancient texts being rewritten to accomodate a persons fantasy. That battle on the moon with airships is a more than amusing concept. I see even Alexander gets a mention. That too has been debated here. The claim has been dated back to 1959. - LINK the original source seems to be a book called book Stranger than Science. Surprise surprise, another tale exposed from a dodgy source. I find the link to have obvious inaccuracies.

Please feel free to ignore a post or two if you are being interrupted enough to not post evidence. Whilst I find the above reference unconvincing, it helps the conversation to see where you are getting these wild ideas from.

Well, I certainly haven't taken any ideas from these pages, so... your last comment was odd and mistaken.

I apologize, upon reading the full page, I disagree with a very large amount of it: rephrase, I agree with only very small portions. Sort about that. Not a good page after all (I regret, I only read part of it when I posted it before; quite premature of me). My sincere apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a one of these sources comes close to the power requirements. You are not understanding what I am saying I think. It takes a minimum of 3 solar masses of energy. Three of our suns. Not nuclear energy, but a nuclear explosion the likes of which man can only comprehend by watching novas. I do not think you are comprehending the energy source required.

Not to be picky, but you skipped over the how do you know this question. May I impress upon you to answer that?

Nuclear energy beyond our current capacity, naturally. The texts describe it as producing energy like that of "a thousand suns". Would that suffice, do you think?

I am aware of these things due to their being in the ancient texts: hold on just a moment, before you ask me to link to a reference, I'm trying to see if I can find it on the Internet right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do keep going Arbitran....it is interesting.

I am sure Psyche will help keep the conversation honest :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly haven't taken any ideas from these pages, so... your last comment was odd and mistaken.

I apologize, upon reading the full page, I disagree with a very large amount of it: rephrase, I agree with only very small portions. Sort about that. Not a good page after all (I regret, I only read part of it when I posted it before; quite premature of me). My sincere apologies.

Not a problem, Your second comment should explain my first comment ;) I am referring to references in general. If you have them we would like to see them. Perhaps more so than answering one of my posts if it is a question of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy beyond our current capacity, naturally. The texts describe it as producing energy like that of "a thousand suns". Would that suffice, do you think?

Indeed a thousand suns would be overkill, I would be more than interested to read it. If it was a viable concept however, do you not think it would have been deployed by now?

I am aware of these things due to their being in the ancient texts: hold on just a moment, before you ask me to link to a reference, I'm trying to see if I can find it on the Internet right now.

No worries, I shall return later. Take your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do keep going Arbitran....it is interesting.

I have little fear it will stop suddenly ;)

I agree, now we are getting somewhere. Personal belief is fine, personal proof does not cut the mustard, I am sure you agree.

I am sure Psyche will help keep the conversation honest :rolleyes:

You know it!

honest_abe.jpg

Hope you had a great Easter, only problem with mine was it was too short. Hard to get back in the groove today.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed a thousand suns would be overkill, I would be more than interested to read it. If it was a viable concept however, do you not think it would have been deployed by now?

No worries, I shall return later. Take your time.

No I do not think that we have used that technology as of yet. Nor will we in the near future. Do you suggest that we are at the peak of our technology? The gods are a Type III civilization--they can harness the energy of our entire galaxy at their disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have little fear it will stop suddenly ;)

I agree, now we are getting somewhere. Personal belief is fine, personal proof does not cut the mustard, I am sure you agree.

Hope you had a great Easter, only problem with mine was it was too short. Hard to get back in the groove today.

It was good thanks buddy. Hope you had a nice break too.

And yes I do agree with the comments regarding belief versus proof. Thats why I am hanging about, waiting for that golden nugget to appear :)

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, who taught ancient Egyptians and Sumerians of hand puppetry... ummm... while pleasuring themselves. Alien by name Atum?

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, who taught ancient Egyptians and Sumerians of hand puppetry... ummm... while pleasuring themselves. Alien by name Atum?

:ph34r:

lost me there bmk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lost me there bmk?

I didn't posted link, since material may be seen as too "graphic" for younger members. But check PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lost me there bmk?

Perhaps that someone's "getting off" by "yanking the chains" of others? :unsure2:

Here's my 2 cents worth: Many cultures talk about gods from the heavens/sky. Such does not mean that they understood concepts of modern astronomy and astrophysics. Anyone who thinks they can somehow prove that our ancient ancestors had modern knowledge of the universe and physics has one heck of a burden of proof to fulfill. Hey, but by all means...have a go at it. But, please don't get upset if many people aren't willing to accept any evidence based on faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.