How did ancient peoples know "so much"?

[GaryN]

This guy appears to have moved some pretty impressive loads with VERY simple wooden aids, and some balancing weights.

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1

No doubt (some of) the ancients were very resourceful and inventive, but did these abilities arise independently around the world, get passed on by ancient mariners, or perhaps come from a 'higher' authority?

[bboyer]

This guy appears to have moved some pretty impressive loads with VERY simple wooden aids, and some balancing weights.

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1

No doubt (some of) the ancients were very resourceful and inventive, but did these abilities arise independently around the world, get passed on by ancient mariners, or perhaps come from a 'higher' authority?

Sheldrake's morphic resonance and fields? http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

[mague]

The point here is that the astronomy embodied in Stonehenge and practically all other ancient astronomical constructs is not fundamentally deeper than what can be discovered with a stick. All that is required is some basic math, patience, and an inquisitive mind.

Hello Altonhare,

i agree. You even dont need a stick. Just mind (Mind as in symbiosis of brain logic, consciousness and emotion).

The whole move-big-stones-around thing is just proove how some people tried to impress other people and convince them that they are more important then others. Personally i think this was the beginning of the end and not of the evolution.

The whole idea that you need a celestial calender to know the optimal time to sow or to harvest is silly. A cross in the calendar is absolutely useless within microclimate and the real time situation of the area you live in. I am living on the countryside and the farmers here "know" the time to sow or harvest. Sometimes they work day and night, weekdays and weekends in mid august and sometimes they take it easy and start to harvest late August to mid september. A static celestial calendar cant know anything about the micro climate and real time conditions. And by the way, the moon is much more important for farming and forresting then any other heavenly body when it comes to timing. You dont need anthing to meassure the moon, he is easily observable and its cycles easily countable.

Probably one of the oldest hints is earth-mother (20.000 years and older)
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/venusfigures.htm
(Dont let you misslead by the term "Venus")

If your planet has personality, then there is no reason not to talk to it. Our ancestors lived a rather short life within nature. They have been pragmatic. They tried to talk to everything. I have no proove, but if you want to trust me i can tell you that there are people who talk to almost everything. Even nowadays. Can you imagine what earth, sun or a distant star is able to tell you about space and universe ? Can you imagine what a piece of a meteorite is able to tell about the space he travelled ? Can you imagine what a crystal or rock is able to tell you about the beginning of time on earth ?

No need for sticks and no need for temples and monoliths.

[altonhare]

Hello Altonhare,

i agree. You even dont need a stick. Just mind (Mind as in symbiosis of brain logic, consciousness and emotion).

Explain to me how you correlate motions of celestial entities purely by thinking and not at all by observing (i.e. comparing the motion to a stick or something).

I am living on the countryside and the farmers here "know" the time to sow or harvest. Sometimes they work day and night, weekdays and weekends in mid august and sometimes they take it easy and start to harvest late August to mid september. A static celestial calendar cant know anything about the micro climate and real time conditions.

They "know" by the temperature, humidity, etc. they observe. Of course.

You dont need anthing to meassure the moon, he is easily observable and its cycles easily countable.

In the case of counting cycles you're using the horizon, i.e. the earth itself. You're using the body on which you're standing to measure the moon's relative motion.

You may not need a stick, but you need something. It's certainly a lot easier to use a stick than to try to find naturally occurring land marks that line up fortuitously.

I have no proove, but if you want to trust me i can tell you that there are people who talk to almost everything.

You don't need proof, this is a theory. Your hypothesis is a person and a star, or a meteorite, etc. Your theory seeks to explain how these two can communicate/interact. All I need to hear is an explanation for how this occurs.

If the person and the meteorite are physically connected, the problem is solved. All the actions occurring in the person and the meteorite disturb the connection between the two, and ultimately disturbs the meteorite or person. In this way they send signals back and forth to each other. This is why rope-chain theory is so powerful.

[altonhare]

Hey Grey Cloud,

I finally finished that essay on "the actual astronomy of 2012" that you posted. Thank you very much, a good read.

While the issue is obviously debatable (what isn't?), there's no question the Mayans were working with a very high degree of accuracy. I told Melanie (my fiancee) about Dec. 21 2012 and we're thinking of taking a trip to New Mexico .

The pendulum technique I described is just one, very low tech, way of observing precession. While it's low tech, the potential accuracy is extremely high. Essentially the longer the string, the more accurate the measurement will be. The Mayans could have simply built a very tall tower with a swinging rock, with the original intent of quantifying the earth's rotation accurately. If they were at it long enough they would notice a drift in the *observed* rotational velocity of the earth. If they assumed this drift was cyclical, in particular that it is circular, they could have calculated the length of the cycle to an accuracy limited only by how high they built their pendulum. Additionally, the author of the article mentions that the precessional cycle itself drifts. Again this would have been observable to a degree limited only by the height of the pendulum and they would have incorporated this data into their mathematical model as long as they had no religious qualms about "imperfect circles".

It's true that the air resistance on the pendulum slows it down, but this is a systematic error (and is decreased by having a high pendulum). Since the behavior is modeled as cyclical a systematic error will tend to cancel out.

[kevin]

This KNOWING business, gnosis.
If instead of assuming that ancient people thought anything that is now accepted as fact, such as this planet turning and travelling along, should we not stop assuming?
I have a knowing that this planet is not turning or moving, and that knowing hit me in a split second.
So! what could achieve these sudden revelations where odd people such as myself suddenly declare that they KNOW things?

I have bothered to backtrack and carefully investigate the precise point that I was stood on when I suddenly KNEW.
I also seem to know that this was simply a blast of information that found an empty resonant cavity inside my head, thus it was easy for it to enter in and reside there in abundance, could the ancient people have been similer?

They sure do seem to KNOW far more than we do now about a lattice structure that they constructed all their megalithic structures about.

So! , are these pathways information highways, and if one occupies these points and accumulates this information within the sponge like cavities of the stones, could it be that they would KNOW, and know ever so much?

But if as I suspect, or KNOW, these flows are actually TIME, and that the information encoded in those flows will correspond to the cyclic time it actually is, then what any period of this cyclic flow will download and over print any previous knowledge as it streams about on its pathways.
We could all FORGET, everything we know now in a flash, and that may be so thorough that we would forget how to stay formed as at present.
We may then begin to re-form in a different cake mixture sort of way, perhaps becoming another what will be KNOWN as a new breed?
What that new breed may know or not know will be relevant to the information contained as it flows.
If You break the whole thing down to this information base, then the only question is , who's operating the system?

Every single idea must come from somewhere?, every law of physics , somebody must have thought about, every new jump in knowing must origonate somewhere.
What if?, the aether flows contain all the combined information of all time and of all pathways that the aether has both created and dissolved back into itself?
What if?, our DNA responds in a two way deal, where it seeks an answer and under attraction the answer instantly arrives.

Thus whatever you are thinking of with real intent, finds You, and is co-created by you thinking of it?
Then if someone is thinking of nothing but ghosts and ghoulies, thats what will find them?
Kevin

[altonhare]

I have a knowing that this planet is not turning or moving, and that knowing hit me in a split second.
So! what could achieve these sudden revelations where odd people such as myself suddenly declare that they KNOW things?

If you claim the planet is not turning, then you will have to explain why a pendulum's plane of swing rotates.

If you cannot explain a simple observation, what good is your "knowledge"? What are you trying to accomplish, if you're not explaining what happened? Are you just making any claim that strikes you?

If you disagree that the earth rotates, you will have to at least state why this is wrong. If you claim that it is "only an assumption, and *could* be wrong" that's fine, but you will have to give a *reason* to make a different assumption. So far the assumption that the earth rotates explains why the pendulum's plane of swing rotates. When you can offer an alternative assumption that explains this behavior we'll listen to the rest of the theory.

[junglelord]

Was it not you Alton that claimed that we had no proof the planet was rotating....unless we stood on the sun?


Glad you figured out how to know that we are indeed rotating.

[altonhare]

Was it not you Alton that claimed that we had no proof the planet was rotating....unless we stood on the sun?


Glad you figured out how to know that we are indeed rotating.

I didn't say anything about proof in my posts. The rotation of plane of the pendulum's swing is an observation one explains with a theory. The theory is that the pendulum is sitting on a spherical object that is rotating. This explains the observation, it doesn't prove it. In science we don't prove theories, a theory is just an explanation. Whether you believe the explanation or not is up to you. At best, you've "proven" that the pendulum's plane of swing rotates. It's not really so much a proof as a definition, you point at what the pendulum is doing and define it as a rotating plane of swing. Your explanation for WHY it does this involves a theory that the earth is spherical and rotating.

The only thing that can be remotely called "proof" is to actually see it happen. If you are standing on another entity (like the sun) and can see the earth, you can name what it is doing "rotating". But still you're not really "proving" something as much as pointing at the earth and defining what it is doing as "rotating". Perhaps you observe that some parts of the earth are distinguished from others, and that the shape tends to change in a regular pattern. Then you will formulate a theory to explain this observation. You might hypothesize that the earth is spherical and that it is made of parts. The shapes you observe on the earth are these parts. You then explain the observed cyclically changing shape by theorizing that the earth is rotating.

Kevin disagrees that the earth is rotating. If my pendulum experiment "proves" the earth is rotating he's not allowed to disagree! But the rotating earth is an explanation for the pendulum phenomenon. If Kevin wants to put forth an alternative hypothesis/theory, one that doesn't involve the earth rotating, he is free to do so. Whether any of you believe it is up to you, but if it doesn't explain the pendulum phenomenon (or other observations), what good is it? What do you learn from a "theory" that doesn't explain a simple observation?

[mague]

Hello Altonhare,

i agree. You even dont need a stick. Just mind (Mind as in symbiosis of brain logic, consciousness and emotion).

Explain to me how you correlate motions of celestial entities purely by thinking and not at all by observing (i.e. comparing the motion to a stick or something).

If you can accept that it is possible to talk to earth, moon, sun.. the answer is easy. They just tell/show you how they move and rotate.

I am living on the countryside and the farmers here "know" the time to sow or harvest. Sometimes they work day and night, weekdays and weekends in mid august and sometimes they take it easy and start to harvest late August to mid september. A static celestial calendar cant know anything about the micro climate and real time conditions.

They "know" by the temperature, humidity, etc. they observe. Of course.

Maybe... but aint it hard to predict thunderstorms and 4 weeks of rain ? Why do birds leave early in some years ? How do they know that winter is comming earlier ? Sometimes our weather is rather warm till mid december. Still they leave early well knowing they have to pass the mountains if they want to go south. Maybe there is just something telling us deep inside...

You dont need anthing to meassure the moon, he is easily observable and its cycles easily countable.

In the case of counting cycles you're using the horizon, i.e. the earth itself. You're using the body on which you're standing to measure the moon's relative motion.

You may not need a stick, but you need something. It's certainly a lot easier to use a stick than to try to find naturally occurring land marks that line up fortuitously.

Well, you either use your memory or you put a little pebble on your ledge. Or make a knot into a cord. You dont need a landmark to count full and new moons. It doesnt take generations to understand the moon cycles. He is cycling rather fast and it shouldnt take longer then 5-10 years to understand which full or new moon is up when trees start to become green or which moon is up when they drop their leaves.

I have no proove, but if you want to trust me i can tell you that there are people who talk to almost everything.

You don't need proof, this is a theory. Your hypothesis is a person and a star, or a meteorite, etc. Your theory seeks to explain how these two can communicate/interact. All I need to hear is an explanation for how this occurs.

If the person and the meteorite are physically connected, the problem is solved. All the actions occurring in the person and the meteorite disturb the connection between the two, and ultimately disturbs the meteorite or person. In this way they send signals back and forth to each other. This is why rope-chain theory is so powerful.

See my post in the other thread about rope theory. However we look at it, the connections between "stuff" is the channel to communicate. Be it chemical communication by smell or taste or any other "vibration". It doesnt matter if you look at the ropes as a complex network or if you look at it that soul is connecting "stuff" via a central unit. If you have connection to your own rope/soul there is no problem to ask the status/idea/funktion of another entity in the network. You may either ask the entity through a direct rope or you ask the "central coputer" about entity XYZ.

What you call disturbance is a valid point. A few millenia ago most people lived in nature. The disturbance was low. For some reasons more and more humans dropped/neglected their connection. Cause and effect turned them "mad" and away from their rope and faith into their rope. Thats what almost all religions are about. Not about worshiping, but about not messing with the source and the connection to it. Today most people have forgot that they are able to talk to "stuff". We have different concepts of devils and guilt. But it is a game somehow. The maya called themselves weavers of time. They knew about 7Makaw, the arrogant bird that was pretending to be the source. 7Makaw is a distant star. How is a star a few AU away able to pretent to be god the source/central unit of ropes without universal communication ?

[kevin]

I have a knowing that this planet is not turning or moving, and that knowing hit me in a split second.
So! what could achieve these sudden revelations where odd people such as myself suddenly declare that they KNOW things?

If you claim the planet is not turning, then you will have to explain why a pendulum's plane of swing rotates.

If you cannot explain a simple observation, what good is your "knowledge"? What are you trying to accomplish, if you're not explaining what happened? Are you just making any claim that strikes you?

If you disagree that the earth rotates, you will have to at least state why this is wrong. If you claim that it is "only an assumption, and *could* be wrong" that's fine, but you will have to give a *reason* to make a different assumption. So far the assumption that the earth rotates explains why the pendulum's plane of swing rotates. When you can offer an alternative assumption that explains this behavior we'll listen to the rest of the theory.

The apparent movement of all mass in space is the result of the flow charecteristics of space.
Our limited senses and any consequent assistant to those senses are merely still operating in the limited method of those senses.
We observe via the flowing streams of space, and those flows circulate in alternate multi directions around each formed mass upon the geometrical framework that allows inter dimensional transfer.
I am not saying that planets are not rotating, but that they are contained in their own spheres of rotating aether circulations , and those circulations create and dissolve constantly all within them.

You view the mass of a planet as a permanent moving solid object floating along controlled by a force called gravity that I consider does not exist, it is an illusion.
The illusion is because we cannot yet comprehend how the transfer occurs through the medium of the aether, it is not linear, the signals sent out to observe, whatever they are, are via this medium that we do not yet comprehend.
the signals sent then return, our assumption is that they have taken a linear speed of light or whatever pathway.
that pathway may be upon huge spiral and circulating pathways adding to the illusion of distances and speeds.

Basically to simplify, instead of thinking from the view point of the observed, we must think of the view point of what is not observed, and try to attribute all phenonoma to the aether, where the mass is a consequence of the aether and it's as yet unknown modus operandi.
This planet is not the cause of what we think of as gravity, or magnetism, it contributes in a symbiotic fashion with that which has created it and continuously creates and destroys it.
that creation and destruction is so continuous as to be unseen by ourselves, nothing exists for miniscual time, then remembers what it was dependent upon the circulating condition of the aether remaining steady, any sudden transfer in/out of that condition will change the information content overall and locally enormously.
this will be viewed as lightening locally, and over longer periods of time how the continents appear to move, they will not be moving they will be forgetting their positioning in a steady creep relative to the information inputs from all around a sphere.
that memory will also be in all directions at once so upward and downward apparent movement will be the memory of every created part resetting.
Our life span is brief compared to the life of the planet, we observe almost a still frame of the life span of the planet.
Every living and supposed non living thing is subject to the aether flows and how they circulate within and about, you yourself are not what you observe, you are a density within a much larger dual circulation of the aether that is you, and that dual circulation is dependent upon the planets same and the planet is dependent upon larger etc etc.
When you look at someone you are not looking in a linear fashion but via yours and the other persons circulations.
Nothing is what we have ASSUMED, every law is that of the 3D dimension, and that dimension is a crude part of higher dimensions.
The whole shooting match is holographic, and we are blind, or been kept blind to this, it's fabulous, stupendous, and really confusing.
kevin

[altonhare]

If you can accept that it is possible to talk to earth, moon, sun.. the answer is easy. They just tell/show you how they move and rotate.

Before you can make such a claim you have to define the word "talk". Then we'll know what you mean.

Maybe... but aint it hard to predict thunderstorms and 4 weeks of rain ? Why do birds leave early in some years ? How do they know that winter is comming earlier ? Sometimes our weather is rather warm till mid december. Still they leave early well knowing they have to pass the mountains if they want to go south. Maybe there is just something telling us deep inside...

I have no problem accepting that birds and farmers may be more sensitive to environmental conditions than I am, or may have greater intuition (conscious or not) about how these conditions change than I do.

Something telling us "deep inside"? Again, I have no problem with an entity gaining and responding to information that they are not explicitly conscious of. Consciousness is a luxury that most life forms get by with the bare minimum of. I shouldn't end my sentences with of. Oh well, sometimes these are things which nothing can be done of.

Well, you either use your memory or you put a little pebble on your ledge. Or make a knot into a cord. You dont need a landmark to count full and new moons. It doesnt take generations to understand the moon cycles. He is cycling rather fast and it shouldnt take longer then 5-10 years to understand which full or new moon is up when trees start to become green or which moon is up when they drop their leaves.

In the former case you're talking about counting new moons. But this information is useless unless you compare it to something. You could count the number of new moons and compare it to the number of sunrises, for instances. Then you can know there are ~28 sunrises to a new moon.

In the latter case you have invoked exactly what I talked about, another object like a tree. Now you are saying that there are 12 new moons between snow falls or blossoming. You're using a stick (trees are offended now). This method isn't perfect, obviously, the flowers don't always bloom in regular cycles. But then again the periods of the pendulum are not regular over a sufficiently long time (sun's size and mass change, gravitation changes, blah blah blah).

So the two methods you laid out here are fine and have their area of applicability. If one wants to estimate The Great Year then a pendulum is probably more advisable than counting new moons between flower blossomings. If you're a farmer you probably want to know when the flowers blossom and when the snows come in more than you want to estimate a precessional cycle.

In the end, though, you need a stick (i.e. a reference). Your reference may be the blooming of a flower, the leaves falling off a tree, a snow fall, a sunrise, a pendulum, etc. So we're not in fundamental disagreement, you're just pointing out that there are other possible references than a stick and a pendulum. I'd argue, however, that the accuracy implied by 2012 could only have been achieved via careful marking of the sun's position via a stick and careful measuring of the earth's precession via a pendulum. Assuming, of course, they did not have advanced astronomy apparatus we don't know about (which is of course possible). The pendulum explanation is trying to achieve the greatest accuracy with the lowest tech, although some consider it a stretch because it appears the Mayans may have calc'd Dec. 21st 2012 "dead on". I'd have to do some extensive research with a high tower and a swinging rock to determine just how much accuracy can be gleaned from this technique.

Maybe they had telescopes, who knows. But without evidence of this I think the better explanation is a low tech (but amply constructed) pendulum combined with a lot of patience, careful recording, and algebra/geometry.

[altonhare]

The apparent movement of all mass in space is the result of the flow charecteristics of space.

Define mass and space so I can conceptualize the motion and flow of these entities.

Our limited senses and any consequent assistant to those senses are merely still operating in the limited method of those senses.

But you are using your senses to draw these conclusions about your senses, so you are still relying on your senses.

I am not saying that planets are not rotating,

Great. Then the discussion is fairly moot at this point.

You view the mass of a planet as a permanent moving solid object floating along controlled by a force called gravity that I consider does not exist, it is an illusion.

If you define solid as "continuous" then this is untrue. If by "solid" you mean more dense than air, where density is simply the number of fundamental constituents comprising an object compared to the hypothetical volume of the object if it were continuous, then this is true.

Gravity just means that one object moves towards another. A theory of gravity explains why objects move toward each other. Do you disagree that objects move towards each other?

The illusion is because we cannot yet comprehend how the transfer occurs through the medium of the aether, it is not linear, the signals sent out to observe, whatever they are, are via this medium that we do not yet comprehend.

What good is a "theory" that nobody can comprehend? Here Bill and I have laid out theories everyone can visualize, imagine, and apply to the world around them. Why should we accept your theory, which is admittedly incomprehensible!?

[Grey Cloud]

Genuine question to anybody (except Mague and Kevin ) : How did the ancients know about the tilt of the Earth (23.5 deg?).

Mague: I understand 7 Macaw to be the Big Dipper.
Mague and Kevin: I agree that we have forgotten and that it is possible to 'talk' to Nature or to receive 'knowing' from Nature. The reason we have forgotten is because we have moved away from the source due to the cyclical nature of things. As I understand things, we have just rounded the bend are heading back on the home straight. It may also be something to do with the tilt of the Earth which is why I would like an answer to the above question.

[altonhare]

Genuine question to anybody (except Mague and Kevin ) : How did the ancients know about the tilt of the Earth (23.5 deg?).

This was fairly easy, but let's walk through it so everyone can understand.

Firstly, what does it mean to say a sphere is tilted? If I take two balls A and B with no markings on them whatsoever and "tilt" B (rotate it a bit then stop), they both look the same. They are at the same distance, so how do we determine which one is tilted if we're not the ones who tilted it in the first place?

The answer is that we cannot. Notice I am not saying that B did not rotate in the first place, I am saying that, in practice, we are usually examining B after any rotations have taken place. We are trying to determine if rotation occurred after the fact.

Now take B and put a dot on it. Imagine a line through this dot and through the center of B, call it "B's axis". Imagine another line through the centers of A and B, call this the "plane of A and B". Astronomers refer to the angle between the two lines as the "tilt" of sphere B relative to A.

So if astronomers both modern and ancient say the earth is tilted, they are referring to some reference "marking" on the earth. The question is, how did they decide which dot to use, how did they decide where it should be?

This question is, again, caught up in the rotation of earth. While technically you can use any old point on earth and calculate an angle of tilt assuming that point and the earth's center as an axis, it makes more sense to base your axis on some other measurable/observable. The observable used is the earth's rotation. Again the pendulum experiment is ideally suited. If a sphere is rotating then the rotation rate of the pendulum's plane of swing will depend on your location on the sphere. You will find that, if you move in one direction, the rate of plane rotation will remain constant and if you travel in the other direction it will change very fast. The former direction is referred to as "east or west" and the latter direction is "north or south". In the former case you are changing your longitude and in the latter case you are changing your latitude. If the Maya assumed earth is a sphere they would have correlated the rate of plane rotation with latitude. At some latitude the rate of plane rotation is 0 (referred to as the equator) and at some point the rate of plane rotation is a maximum (equal to the rotational velocity of the earth) and we refer to this location as a pole. The Maya would have noticed that the rate of plane rotation will be a maximum at some specific point and, with some intuition or just straight geometry, determined that there are two such points "north and south poles". They would have calculated these positions relative to their own. A line drawn between these poles and the earth's center makes an angle of ~23.5 degrees with the plane of A and B described before.

Make sense GC?

Pendulums are wonderful .