Mechanical Engineering in Ancient times

reply to post by Maegnas


I am sorry but why are such detailed scripts like Ramayana or Mahabharata or any of these technological scripts which Indigo mentioned anything like Star Wars, a generic action movie with less than a quarter of dialogue compared to these texts. When people from the future sit and compare these two works, like Mahabharata or the SS and Star Wars, the hollywood material would just pale in comparison with all sorts of cheesy dialogue.

Besides both these epics are based on Earth with reference to all the city names and places which exist till today, unlike Star wars where there are barely any boundaries and I doubt Earth gets even mentioned or shown once, in contrast with all the other colorful planets each the size of Jupiter which are shown.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Karmaverick]

reply to post by Maegnas


Well, there is clearly a difference between Icarus flying off to the sun and the vimanas which are mechanical flying machines constructed by people and mentioned across the vast corpus of Sanskrit literature, including in the engineering text with a fairly good description of the engine. The Hindu equivalent to Icarus flying off to the sun would be the myth of Hanuman(monkey god) flying off to the sun and eating it

It is definitely a text on the subject of engineering and architecture. I have already proven that. However, it does not include proofs and schematcs, because I said earlier it is not in the Sanskrit tradition to give proofs and schematics as it is in the Western tradition. This is not just true for engineering, it is also true for mathematics. This does not mean proofs and schematics did not exist, but as a idiosyncracy of this tradition, they did not care to mention them in texts. This is probably because the Sanskrit tradtiion was heavily a "oral tradition" and only wrote reference texts to aid teaching. Thus only general points were given.

The chapter on machines in the SS is not to how-to-build DIY guide , it is merely a compilation of known machines and general principles. If you look up an aeroplane in a an encyclopedia, you will not find detailed descriptions of how to build one, you will always find a general description. Juat as in SS we only find a general description.

If we cannot make a distinction between the myths of people flying into the sun and mechnical flying machines piloted by people, then it is easy to see how a future generation that has lost memory of our times, could conlflate the description of our real aeroplanes with our sci-fi starships and with our older myths such as Icarus. For this reason, as I said earlier on, we need to make sure we discriminate intelligently and accurately, so as not to confuse mythology for history, and likewise, history for mythology.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child
I think Maegnus makes a pretty fair, valid comparison between Greek myth and the myth of Indian aeroplanes.

For this reason, as I said earlier on, we need to make sure we discriminate intelligently and accurately, so as not to confuse mythology for history, and likewise, history for mythology.

Unfortunately, you appear to enjoy applying rules over what 'should' be considered history and myth. Naturally, this allows you to control the 'discussion (if that's what this is)' and veto responses according to your rules. The outcome of such an approach will tend to validate your OP (in any forum) and will always leave a possibility that your ideas are plausible.

The same technique is used by another member that cherry picks their evidence and resorts to re-writing millions of years' history to accommodate his claims. He knows who he is and wouldn't even blush at this fact.

The SS texts make claims for these flying machines that aren't supported by the physical, archaeological evidence. The written histories of neighbors also fail to mention India having aeroplanes and nobody can even contemplate that they had robots. It's absurd. The part of the texts that makes the claim, in the absence of supporting evidence, is therefore *probably* fictional. A great many old texts have large elements of fiction too. 12th Century claims needn't have more validity than any others.

To seriously make this claim in the 21st Century is simply perverse. I appreciate you are apt to be gullible (I remember that Meier thread) and tend to take things literally. However, exercising critical thinking negates the idea of ancient 'aeroplanes and robots' before needing to launch a thread. The fact that your mind is made up anyway, makes it doubly redundant. You are intelligent and articulate and waste your 'critical thinking' by applying it to ways to suggest India is the cradle of everything and that Hindu religious texts are literally true. Significantly, there are some Hindu archaeologists who also seek to prove vimanas and whatnot. Even they can't find evidence...

This isn't a personal attack. I'm just aware that you'll plod through 80 pages and have exactly the same notions as you began with. Ideas should beget ideas and change over time. I'm gonna leave you to it with no hard feelings

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Alright, I must put my foot down somewhere. Icarus was NOT a God of any sort, he is clearly described as human (son of Daedalus, the great inventor of ancient times in Greece and eastern Mediterranean). He didn't get to the sun, he just got close enough for his wax made wings to melt, he them fell back to earth and died (there's an island in the Aegean named Ikaria in his memory). Like the Vimanas, his wings were also "described" but not so accurately as to be actually made! The SS text started off as an engineering text, in your OP, then got "demoted" to a reference text like an encyclopedia? Shouldn't that be the case from the start? When you say "we have an engineering text about ancient airplanes" an engineer might think "cool, now I will build one!".

Sanskrit texts like ancient Greek texts contain fact and fiction alike. Have you read the Iliad? Yes, that old epic that Hollywood ruined in "Troy"! It is riddled with divine intervention, should we take at face value? We KNOW, thanks to Mr Schliemann, that Troy existed, that several wars have damaged/destroyed it in centuries past and that it suffered a major disaster, a man made disaster, around 1100 BC. Since all these parts of the Iliad are true, are we supposed to think Zeus and Hera and all the other folks that stirred ancient Greek imagination were also true? Or do Sanskrit texts hold some special degree in being "true" where all other texts are not 100% true?

If you like to "change" the rules you state in opening posts, or bend them to suit your position, please say so in the beginning. It would save me the trouble of posting had I known that some texts hold water while others don't! It would also lend much credibility if we knew from the start that "this is the case, no argument against it, have a nice day", kinda like preaching in a church ("do as I say or go to hell"). I am sorry but until we find some physical evidence I will remain highly skeptical towards ancient aircrafts, in India or anywhere else.

P.S. an ancient Greek text by Lucian of Samosata deals with interplanetary travel (around 1st century AD). Did ancient Romans and/or Greeks go to outer space? Here is a quick reference to it.

reply to post by Maegnas


Indigo believes that history took place in a drastically different way than is potrayed today. From his posts it clearly looks like that alternate history has been cemented in him for some time now as you can see from his posts. Why should his ideas change over time? And by this i mean the person who made that statement makes it sound like it's a must. Ideas can change if that person sees that he has seen enough proof or facts especially when concerned with history.

I dont think he should change his ideas over time just for the sake of it or to turn the thread in some sort of a creative experience, like making it up as you go ahead with different ideas. He absolutely believes in this and i do rather see the OP whose opening posts are always a testament to this fact, hold the same convictions 80 posts later, than see him make a 180 degree turn at the end of it provided there is quite a bulk of material to go along with it.

reply to post by Karmaverick


so, to get this right (English is not my native tongue, please bear with me), while there is no solid proof of ancient Indian aircrafts he shouldn't change his ideas. While there's absolutely no proof backing his ideas up, he shouldn't change his ideas. He should continue believing that something not found now (and perhaps never found in the future too) did exist, right?

If I got it correct then it is a "win-win" situation for Indigo. If evidence of ancient planes is found, he "wins". If evidence is never found he still "wins" (just because it isn't found it doesn't mean it is not there, right?).

Well, that should be up there in post #1 mate. As I said before, had I known that rules and policies concerning the weight his type of "evidence" carries would be changed and bent to suit his theory (without physical evidence, it's the best he can get, a theory) AND deny other theories that follow this path, I would never post here. If this is the sort of debate that is carried out here ("it is correct if I say so but if you say something like that it is wrong!") then I am wasting valuable time and should have known better than to enter this forum.

By this logic, "if I cut your head you'll be healed, but DON'T you dare do that to me". If that is truly the case, then....

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Most, if not all the technology that you talk about in this as well as in other threads of yours regarding knowledge of the ancients comes from Egypt. I dont believe its India. I guess the knowledge was passed to India from Egypt. Thats why most probably the Indians just left a whole lot of literature and nothing factual. Archeological evidence found in Egypt proves this.
The ancient Egyptians kings were called the sun kings just as much in ancient India they were called the kings of the solar race. Valmiki wrote Ramayana many many years after the incident had taken place. Most probably took place in Egypt or nearby it. Rama was most likely an Egyptian king. In ancient Egypt there was a tradition of worshipping a king after he was dead. The king was considered as a representation of God on the planet and was considered that God would enable him to rule righteously. Rama was considered as a God man or a demi God. The same was the case with many Egyptian kings of earlier times. Krishna, Rama as well as others are all anointed ones. Thats why when we read the epics we find that most of the world being de populated.
My conclusion is that the literature/texts were obtained by India from Egypt and hinduism is just a mutated religion of ancient Egypt. When we read the emerald tablets, hermetica we can find that most of the teachings of hinduism comes from them.

Thank you Karmaveric. I agree with you, I am not going to change my views, unless I find evidence that shows that. I am making an evidence-based argument, this has nothing to do with what I want to believe. I do not declare something to be true or likely to be true without evidence.

In the “India Superpower” thread I am declaring something to be true based on evidence. If one wants to refute it, they need to start by refuting the evidence.

In this thread I am declaring something to be likely true. Again based on evidence. A very solid evidence in fact that an engineering text describes real machines that existed in ancient times, and we have actually found them. Moreover, the engine it describes is actually functional, and is very similar to the ion engine. The credibility of this text is already established by the fact.

Now somebody is claiming that this text, SS, is the equivalent of a Greek myth like Icarus flying towards the sun with his waxed wings and then says I am not being critical. It is patently obvious they are not equivalent. One is a large 83 chapter engineering and architecture text. The other is a myth. One actually contains descriptions of machines that we know definitely existed, the other doesn’t.

One of the Indian equivalent of the icarus myth is the myth of Hanuman flying to the sun and swallowing it.

There clearly is a difference between an actual engineering text with detailed descriptions and on guidelines on drafting, town planning, architecture, masonry and a myth. It is plain as day light this text is not a mythical text. This text is just as valid as any ancient scientific treatise, such as the Greek treatises.

The only argument against it I can see so far is, “It mentions aeroplanes” and therefore it must be mythical. Not a very good argument at all. It also mentions an analogue computer with 18th century level of miniaturization and engineering. Aeroplanes are only 2 centuries away. So let’s see ancients can have 18th century level of technology, but not 20th century?

We have found the analog computer and who knows we may soon find the ancient aeroplanes as well, however until we do not, there is still more evidence in favour of these ancient aeroplanes actually existing because if the ancients are capable of 18th century technology, they are just as capable of 20th century technology. There is nothing too special about the aeroplanes. The ancients had the level of engineering and the scientific knowledge to build aeroplanes.

The SS text started off as an engineering text, in your OP, then got "demoted" to a reference text like an encyclopedia?

Hmmm, I am citing my opening paragraph introducing the SS:

The 12th century text Samararigana-sutradha(SS) is an encyclopaedic Sanskrit text on engineering and construction compiled by the king Bhoja using sources going back into antiquity. It also has a whole chapters on machines. It describes various kinds of machines

I never demoted it to an encylopedia. I said it was an encylopedia on engineering, construction/architecture from the very beginning, and never changed that view.

I am not sure what you don't understand about my explanation. It is not a how-to-guide. It is an encylopedia on engineering/architecture, containing only general descriptions and general principles. This text is very much real. It is not controversial at all. As I said to the other guy, "You are not going to get very far in denying this text"

Your entire argument comparing this text to a myth is strawman. This thread does not appeal to the Sanskrit epic texts(except only as secondary reference) to prove these aeroplanes are real. If I did that, your argument would be valid. This thread appeals to an actual real engineering encylopedia to prove these aeroplanes are likely real machines, which actually mentions real machines we have verified to have existed.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by CuteAngel


Sure, you can believe that if you want. There is not a shred of evidence to support it though, but belief often does not demand evidence.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


You've got to be joking, No evidence??? What about the many tablets, inscriptions as well as scribes found, what about the pyramids as well as the hieroglyphs contained in them??? India apparently just contains the manuscripts.
Ancient Egypt developed a system of worship where there used to be a diagram/figure/image and there were specific incantations/spells for each image/diagram. The Image would serve as a symbol and the incantation would serve as a key to unlock the symbol which would give us the secrets to certain aspects of truth/life. There were 2 groups. The Phoenicians specialized in the sounds of the incantations and the Canaanites specialized in the symbols. Later they united and became the Phoenician Canaanites. Mixing this along with a culture developed where the dead kings were worshiped we can come to the conclusion that the priests of India were most likely preaching the Egyptian religion in India.

What about the many tablets, inscriptions as well as scribes found, what about the pyramids as well as the hieroglyphs contained in them??? India apparently just contains the manuscripts.

What tablets, what inscriptions, what hieroglyphics?

Indian records do not mention anything about coming from Egypt or anywhere else. The Vedas, Ramayana and Mahabharata describe India's geography. In fact we can pretty much locate where each ancient city was located in India from the descriptions given in the texts:



If India really had an egyptian religion why would they not have pyramids, which were the main religious artefact of Egypt? Why is the Egyptian language, coptic, not spoken in India? Why do we not find hieroglyphic script in India?

Indian culture, including language and religion is Indo-European. Egyptian culture, language and religion is not Indo-european. Why?

Before any further discussion I will need you to verify that all these quotes are actually parts of what you posted earlier today. If you agree that they are we can continue.

The parts in bold are my emphasis, except one, the word "likely" in the second to last quote. Agreed on this one too?

In this thread I am declaring something to be likely true. Again based on evidence. A very solid evidence in fact that an engineering text describes real machines that existed in ancient times, and we have actually found them. Moreover, the engine it describes is actually functional, and is very similar to the ion engine. The credibility of this text is already established by the fact.

You will have to verify that the first bold part reads "engineering text" (#1), the second one reads "and we have actually found them" (where?) and the third reads "actually functional" (why did you keep this hidden? We could save ourselves the trouble if you said that we had found the airplanes and they are functioning).

I will also have to reiterate a previous demand of mine. Can we MAKE one of these functional engines?

There clearly is a difference between an actual engineering text with detailed descriptions and on guidelines on drafting, town planning, architecture, masonry and a myth.

I believe the "engineering text"(#2) with all the goodies is the SS text and the myth is Icarus, right?

if the ancients are capable of 18th century technology, they are just as capable of 20th century technology.

Slippery slope here. "If the ancients are just as capable as having 20th century technology they are just as capable as having 22nd century technology", right? If a logic is true and solid...

It is not a how-to-guide. It is an encylopedia on engineering/architecture, containing only general descriptions and general principles.

What happened to the engineering text mentioned twice above?

This thread appeals to an actual real engineering encylopedia to prove these aeroplanes are likely real machines, which actually mentions real machines we have verified to have existed.

There it is but now it is making an appearance as "engineering encyclopedia". Again I have to ask, exactly where, when and how we have verified these machines existed? Before 1903 AD that is.

I have to admit that for someone who sticks to his words you change them too often. Promoting and demoting the SS as engineering or encyclopedic text, declaring the machines to be likely, functional yet non-manufacturable (is this a word?). Pick something "solid" and stick to it please so we know what you preach.

One last bit:

We have found the analog computer and who knows we may soon find the ancient aeroplanes as well, however until we do not, there is still more evidence in favour of these ancient aeroplanes actually existing because if the ancients are capable of 18th century technology, they are just as capable of 20th century technology. There is nothing too special about the aeroplanes. The ancients had the level of engineering and the scientific knowledge to build aeroplanes.

(all emphasis on this one is mine)

Yes, we may
When do we call off the search?
I wish *I* could get away with such arguments
(I replied to each emphasized portion using the same emphasis "device")

You will have to verify that the first bold part reads "engineering text" (#1), the second one reads "and we have actually found them" (where?) and the third reads "actually functional" (why did you keep this hidden? We could save ourselves the trouble if you said that we had found the airplanes and they are functioning).

I will also have to reiterate a previous demand of mine. Can we MAKE one of these functional engines?

You were right, English is not your first language. I have said repeatedly that the SS is an engineering text and encyclopedia and I said this in the OP itself. Now that I have clarified this several times, why do you continue to beat a dead horse?

Maybe it is the word "engineering" you are finding difficult to comprehend. Only in modern times has the discipline of engineering and architecture been separated. In the past they were seen as one and the same thing. The SS is ancient text on the subject matter of engineering. It is not a how-to-guide.

I have not said that we have found the aeroplanes. I said we have "those machines" that the SS describes. Why would I claim we have found those aeroplanes, when I say in the OP itself, "who knows maybe we will find the aeroplanes" Does this not imply that we not found them? Even in my last post I said, "It is likely that these aeroplanes existed" If I was certain we found them, why would I be saying it is "likely"

But as you say...English is not your first language. It's just a tad annoying though that you quibble with me over English terms, when you don't seem to have a grasp over the English language yourself.

Slippery slope here. "If the ancients are just as capable as having 20th century technology they are just as capable as having 22nd century technology", right? If a logic is true and solid...

Yes, definitely. There is no reason to expect our ancients could NOT go any further. Why would they stop at 18th century level of technology? They are only 2 centuries away from aeroplanes, computers and nukes.
What is so special about us that only we could do it and not them? It's a serious question. I am questioning this prejudice that only we are capable of this technology but our ancients were not.

The discovery of the antikeythra mechanism has irrevocably changed our knowledge of ancient technology. We can no longer maintain our old views on what the ancients were capable of scientifically and technologically. This is NOT just some minor discovery, it's a massive revolutionary discovery.

One last bit:
Yes, we may
When do we call off the search?
I wish *I* could get away with such arguments
(I replied to each emphasized portion using the same emphasis "device")

Yes, but I don't need to wait until we do find it to derive the conclusion that is it likely true that these aeroplanes did indeed exist. That is because the SS is already shown to be a credible text because the machines it mentions are actually known real machines, which were known to have existed. We also know it is not a religious text, or a mythical text, it is ancient encyclipedic text on engineering. In fact the vast part of it deals with town planing and architecture, not machines. The secondary evidence of these flying machines are found throughout Sanskrit literature of all kinds. These were most likely real machines, and the strongest evidence we have is the SS.

I am sorry I am not the type to reject evidence or turn a blind eye to it. The SS is very hard evidence for the actual existence of these aeroplanes.
I think we have more than enough reason to believe that they did likely exist. Heck, now we know the ancients had analogue computers. I am very confident that later we will find even more amazing finds. Our views on ancient technology will continue to be changed over and over again, until we finally accept we are not the first technological civilisation on this planet with all our "goodies.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

I am sorry that my limited grasp n English has led me to question higher authorities, I cannot promise it won't happen again but I can promise I can try

I will still need some "grammar" explanation so I am not misled again

1. Is there any significant difference between modern and ancient meaning of "engineering"? If so, which of the two meanings were you using?

2. Do the phrases "likely to exist" and "did indeed exist" have the same meaning?

3. On which part of India did the Antikythera device came up?

4. The "ancients" were one nation?

5. What does "functional" mean?

6. What level technology does the 26th century hold for us? It must be somewhere in those texts, using the "expansive" logic (18th century means 20th is almost there, and so on)

7. What other marvelous devices we don't need to wait to be discovered but deduce their existence and functionality based solely on texts written centuries if not millennia AFTER the supposed timeline of said devices, texts offer general and vague descriptions on how they were made. Was the positronic mapping of robot brains described many times in Isaac Asimov's works among them?

8. Does this evidence hold up in a "court of law"?

I have to go now, my vimana arrived and I will miss my flight

P.S. Forgive the sarcasm please, it is not personal it is just a character flaw of mine.

1. Is there any significant difference between modern and ancient meaning of "engineering"? If so, which of the two meanings were you using?

Yes, in ancient times engineering and architecture were not two separate subject as they are today. They were one subject. An ancient engineering text would deal with matters pertaining to subjects like town planning, architecture, construction and mechanics. The SS is therefore an engineering text.

2. Do the phrases "likely to exist" and "did indeed exist" have the same meaning?

No, and I don't believe I ever said they did.

3. On which part of India did the Antikythera device came up?

It did not. It is only mentioned in the SS text very briefly amongst the list of machines that existed. I made no claim these machines were made in India.

4. The "ancients" were one nation?

No, it is a collective term to describe the ancient people in ancient times. If one ancient people have advanced science and technology, then it is most likely others in the ancient world would not be far behind. It would not make much sense if only one ancient people had flying machines, robots and nukes, while the rest had stone tools.

5. What does "functional" mean?

It means that it actually works. The engine described in the SS is similar in description to the modern ion engine.

6. What level technology does the 26th century hold for us? It must be somewhere in those texts, using the "expansive" logic (18th century means 20th is almost there, and so on)

If we take the epic texts as literal then we can expect to see massive flying cities, human cloning, intelligent robots, teleportation, laser weapons, more powerful weapons(than nukes ) thought-controlled machines. Life spans ranging to thousands of years and far greater spiritual abilities.

]7. What other marvelous devices we don't need to wait to be discovered but deduce their existence and functionality based solely on texts written centuries if not millennia AFTER the supposed timeline of said devices, texts offer general and vague descriptions on how they were made. Was the positronic mapping of robot brains described many times in Isaac Asimov's works among them?

]

The SS text is a compilation of older texts. These older texts were most likely destroyed in the ransacking of libraries by the invading Muslims, and hence why the SS text was created. We know this is true because many texts have been lost, but we have found them referenced in extant texts.
The reason that the description in the SS needs to be accepted as credible is because it is our only hard piece of evidence of aeroplanes in ancient times, and taken in conjunction with secondary evidence such as the epic texts which mention aeroplanes as real machines and our third peice of evidence the modern levels of scientific and technological development in ancient times, it becomes likely that these aeroplanes did in fact exist.

8. Does this evidence hold up in a "court of law"?

No, because this is not a legal matter.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

From your opening post:

The places mentioned, the people who lived, the dynasties, the descriptions of engineering and architecture all have now been corroborated with archaeological evidence. In other words events like the great Mahabharata war, describing wondrous things like aeroplanes, robots, WMD, really happened.

The very next paragraph:

If all that is true then it means the allusions to machines are most likely true too. The ancients must have had machines otherwise they would not allude to them so extensively across their whole corpus of literature and describe various types for various purposes. The fact is they even have a word for machine “Yantra” how could they have a word for something that does not exist?

posted on 10-1-2010 @ 02:56 PM:

The ancients had firearms, guns and cannons, explosives and what sounds like chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons.

Further down in the same post:

There is no reason to doubt that these weapons existed. So far we have found almost everything that was considered the mythological from the advanced machines of the ancients to the class of fire-weapons is real.

posted on 11-1-2010 @ 01:18 PM:

To answer your question; no there is no way of being certain about anything in ancient history. It is all subject to reviewing evidence and interpreting accordingly.

posted on 16-1-2010 @ 10:18 PM:

I am sorry I am not the type to reject evidence or turn a blind eye to it. The SS is very hard evidence for the actual existence of these aeroplanes.

very next line:

I think we have more than enough reason to believe that they did likely exist.

posted on 17-1-2010 @ 06:28 PM:

2. Do the phrases "likely to exist" and "did indeed exist" have the same meaning?

No, and I don't believe I ever said they did.

Oh, but you know your way around them, no?

Bold: certainty, no?
Italicized: probable/possible but not certain, no 100%, no?
Underlined: leap? (1st underlined portion) (We do have words that correspond to "things" that do not exist, words like immortality, for example)

2nd underlined portion needs further info. Is the "almost everything" in that passage the Antikythera device? Are there more devices/machines found?



[edit on 18-1-2010 by Maegnas]

So, you either contradict yourself or indeed and likely mean the same thing. Which is it?

I think rather than me going the usual route of "No, I did not say that, I said this" and then going in circles, I will adopt another route. If you feel that my choice of language has been confusing and contradictory, then I will accept full responsibility and clarify for you now what I really think.

I really think that the ancients did have advanced technology. I beleive the flying machines, WMD, robots and other such things did in fact exist. I am convinced beyond a shadow of doubt now and will defend this point strongly and passionately.

But for the purpose of argument I accept that I cannot prove with 100% certainty that they did in fact exist. I accept the possibility that the references to them are mythical and even the SS's description of an actual aeroplane could be wrong, but I think this is unlikely. It is unlikely because of various arguments I already mentioned.

1) The Sanskrit epic texts are talking about real history. The places mentioned in these texts, the historical personalities all have corrobrating evidence to give them real historicity. It seems odd then, that the description of aeroplanes being used by these real people would be mythical.

2) Aeroplanes are mentioned across the vast corpus of Sanskrit literature. It is odd that a mythical thing would be described by so many texts as a real thing.

3) The SS is not a mythical text, but an engineering text. It describes a real machine, and gives a description of its engine and how to pilot it as if it really existed. It mentions other machines that are near enough as advanced as aeroplanes, and we have found most of them, thus it is already more likely the SS is describing real machines.

4) There already exists many things in ancient times(before the common era) that are at modern levels of science and technology. This makes it likely that they can be other things moderns have and beyond.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I think rather than me going the usual route of "No, I did not say that, I said this" and then going in circles, I will adopt another route. If you feel that my choice of language has been confusing and contradictory, then I will accept full responsibility and clarify for you now what I really think.

Well, you are free to say "no, I did not say that, I said this". I only quoted what you wrote, I cannot know what you SAID or MEANT, that's why I kept asking for confirmations and clarification.

I really think that the ancients did have advanced technology. I beleive the flying machines, WMD, robots and other such things did in fact exist. I am convinced beyond a shadow of doubt now and will defend this point strongly and passionately.

And I think they didn't exist. I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt and will defend this point strongly and passionately.

But for the purpose of argument I accept that I cannot prove with 100% certainty that they did in fact exist. I accept the possibility that the references to them are mythical and even the SS's description of an actual aeroplane could be wrong, but I think this is unlikely.

I cannot accept it if it is only for the purpose of argument, you either CAN prove it, beyond a shadow of a doubt, or you cannot. No "gray" area here. Is there ANY physical manifestation that we have found anywhere? Until there is, there is undeniable truth in my claim - I am sorry but you based much of your argument on the physical existence of one advanced machine (the Antikythera device), same "policy" goes for the rest too.

It is unlikely because of various arguments I already mentioned.

1) The Sanskrit epic texts are talking about real history. The places mentioned in these texts, the historical personalities all have corrobrating evidence to give them real historicity. It seems odd then, that the description of aeroplanes being used by these real people would be mythical.

2) Aeroplanes are mentioned across the vast corpus of Sanskrit literature. It is odd that a mythical thing would be described by so many texts as a real thing.

3) The SS is not a mythical text, but an engineering text. It describes a real machine, and gives a description of its engine and how to pilot it as if it really existed. It mentions other machines that are near enough as advanced as aeroplanes, and we have found most of them, thus it is already more likely the SS is describing real machines.

4) There already exists many things in ancient times(before the common era) that are at modern levels of science and technology. This makes it likely that they can be other things moderns have and beyond.

So a text that intermingles real and fictional does not exist for you, right? If a text says "this happened there and there and was witnessed by so and so" (real names and places"), ALL other info in that text has to be real as well, right?

the Iliad describes a war we KNOW happened, it describes cultural aspects we were able to VERIFY (Mycenae and Troy are found for about 140 years now), it describes a device to bring down the resistance of the besieged city (if you don't know what it is, you are taking too many risks with your life ). It ALSO refers to "Gods" and their part in that war, are we to believe that that part is also true? You will probably say "it is a mythical text", it is NOT as parts of it are so "historic" we can VISIT them today.

Texts alone are not going to cut it, we need something more "tangible"

Sorry I have troubled you so much but I had to

[edit on 19-1-2010 by Maegnas]