Want to know how primitive man would draw advanced technology he saw?

reply to post by hoghead cheese


Here's a site that not only explains Pharaoh's Helicopter, it provides translations of the various layers of messaging:

Pharaoh's Helicopter?

The only correction that I make to my original post is that this carving was not discovered in an ancient tomb; it was, rather, discovered as a lintel over a doorway in an ancient Egyptian temple at Abydos.

There are no other "depictions" of helicopter-like craft found anywhere in any Egyptian pictographs or hieroglyphs.

This is a clear case of modern observers projecting their technological fantasies onto ancient renderings.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by karl 12


The man died in 1994, before modern methods of analysis. We hadn't even yet explored some of the extrema-morphs of life on Earth.

Let me whoop some good 'ol modern science up for you.

Osmotic pressure. It's what , amongst other things, lets trees grow tall.

it also allows trees to correlate with gravity. In gliese 581, the planet that is 1/3 bigger than earth? trees would be 3x shorter due to linear relationships between max height and gravity. Predators can reach trees then. That means no primates, because they can't escape predators, as that video we've all seen of the monkey annoying the tiger. No humans can ever exist. Too much gravity makes bipedal upright stature unfavorable. The crane system like dinosaurs is far easier. They win.

3x less? like on Mars? 3x taller means primates can't exist. They fall, they die. They can never come down from the trees. They get too strong to resist the fall? they either climb up, or go down. Big brains can't exist because light gravity means the bipedal creature has to be tall. Too tall and it just falls down too much due to the accelerating nature of gravity. byby humans.

They get worse as you extrema the planet's gravity.


How about Earth? Upright bipedal motion only exists for 2 species I can remember: penguins and humans. And only one of those species is intelligent.

Now let's compare shall we?

The number of species with sentient-like intelligence is as follows:

elephants, whales, parrots, dolphins, crows, primates.

The number of species who seem to be in the direction of more intelligence in the future, or currently display abnormal intelligence for their species groups are as follows:

cuttlefish, squid, octopus, pigeons, pigs, squirrels, and one other bird I forgot the name of.

Ok, so now let's account for a total number of all intelligent species besides man who ever existed on earth. For this we will be including extinct species such as trodon, and a few other dinosaurs. We will NOT be including anything after homo erectus, because they poses the earth bias, where as we are assuming that any change of the planet would have made their ability to survive impossible (as evident by the fact they went extinct the second they couldn't find water, while our more intelligent ancestors learned to store water)

When we look at extinct species, we are taking into account relativity. That being that dinosaurs existed for 170 million or so years, and because only the most intelligent species survive as a rule of thumb in evolution (as evident by early homo species wiping out most other species, and then their ancestors, us, wiping them out. )

extinct higher intelligent species:
Trodon- as intelligent as a modern lower mammal.
Deinonychus- pack hunters that paralleled early man in their place in nature.
Tyrannosaurus Rex- dumber than cats and dogs, but smarter than most small mammals
Oviraptor- The ancient ostrich, which was almost an exact clone in behavior and appearance. modern ostriches play dead with predators, trap them, and care for their young. Fossil records suggest similar behavior.
Maiasaura- care for young bordering the intelligence of most successful mammals. They also had herds in the 10,000s, requiring certain levels of forethought for their size.
Ornithomimus- same thing as oviraptors in behavior.
Mammoths- As smart as modern elephants. Recognized death, was elf aware, etc etc.

So what we come down to is a total number of 12 current species. There are a total of some 7 extinct species as well. we now have a total of 19 species, with 20 including man.

MATH TIME BABY!

There are currently around 424 planets known to exist. out there, plus our 9 (Pluto IS a planet!) Due to the size of some moons and the chances of them having life relevant, as well as the high probability that other gas giants have moons (as all ours do), we will be doing some additional calculations.

424 planets. out of these, only around 3 are known to be close to earth's size, ie, rocky. I'm going to go with 5 here, because many are unknown, and that's around their rate of discovery and natural distribution. I'm also going to go with 10 total earth like world, because for every one slightly bigger, natural mass distribution allows for smaller ones just as likely.

So we have 10 independent worlds the size of earth. Because the rest are likely gas giants, we're going to give 1 moon for each one, because it's very likely they have moons, but we'll go for one just to be fair.

New calculations also suggest that low mass worlds would be pretty common, around 2x that of gas giants, so this allows us to be pretty accurate.

So we can take around 415 planets, and guess up to 830 earth-like worlds, each ranging between 1/3, 1, and 3x earth masses, because that's how it looks so far. so that makes for 210 on each. 830, plus the 1 moon for each gas giant, is 1245 planets relative to 400 stars. so around 3x as many planets as stars. There are around 200-400 billion stars in the milky way, so we're going with around 300 billion to be safe. out of this, the outer stars are more gassy, while the inner stars are mostly carbon planets made of oil, gasoline, petro, etc etc. They're probably not going to have life, despite the large amount of carbon. Most of the carbon is going to have been bonded to other stuff, and blocking the ability of water to form. No water, and not much silicon, means not much life. So we're going to go with probably 1% of life for the inner 3rd of the galaxy. We are on the medium-outer rim of our galaxy, and because we have Gisele so close to ourselves, we're going to estimate that we're close to the maximum distribution of earth-like worlds, because of the carbon issue closer to the galactic core.
Ok so, out of the 60ish stars in that range, only one other has Earth-like worlds, and two, just like us (mars). so that's good enough to do some math here.

1% of 100 billion= 1 billion + 2% mid galactic radius= 2 bil + 3% for our area= 3 bill.

Thus we have 6 billion possible solar systems like ours. 18 billion possible worlds like ours. 18 billion correlates to 20 above with the total species of higher intelligence.

MORE MATH TIME!

assuming that size distribution remains with the natural distribution of worlds, we can eliminate 12 billion of these worlds from having earth-like life due to their gravity changes. 6 billion worlds are likely to have species like birds, Cephalopods, and dinosaurs be their sentient species. And 6 billion are likely to have species like Elephants, whales, and large dinosaurs as their sentient life. And 6 billion are likely to have Earth-like species.

Let's stick with the 6 billion Earth-like ones. The others would have more successful species become sentient than man.


On Earth, Humans were not capable of evolving into as they are without other events. The extinction that allowed dinosaurs to evolve, and mammals, killed off more than 97% of species ever to exist have become extinct. And only the best to survive in the conditions set forth survived. Man can only have 1/20th of a chance to survive to be come THE smartest species, amongst it's brothers, surviving all extinction. 1/20th of these 6 billion thus must not have humanoids. Now we're down to 300 million that have emulated Earth's evolution. Mankind's survival rates can be compared with the total number of primates and itself. there are currently. 300-400 species of primates. So man had around 1/350 chance of surviving it's fellow primates to become as it is. BUT WAIT! there are many extinct primates that could have out competed man if anything changed. so that's around 38 more. Thus, Early man, to have evolved, would have to out compete some 400 other species. So out of those 300 million worlds, only 1/400 had the right conditions to allow early man to exist. That's a 4th of a percent. 750,000 worlds. These can then be divided into 3 groups. Hot, cold, and temperate. Too Hot, and the ice age never happens to allow man kind to exist. Too cold, and mankind can't exist, just Neanderthal-like species with more fur. So we'll take the 3rd of possible Earth clone worlds, not just Earth-like. I do this now, not earlier, because it has to be DURING this species existence, and climate change happens over time. SO we come down to 250,000 worlds. But we can divide more! There was a large population of early men, these being neanderthals, homo erectus, and our ancestors. We are now operating on worlds just like earth, because any change and humans won't meet the conditions to have evolved as they did. These may be reptilians, or grays. But to evolve like us, they would need the same conditions. So of these 250,000 worlds, we have to do some work with how humans evolved. In the beginning, the number of Neanderthals and Homo erectus were the same. Our ancestors directly replaced homo erectus. Because humans came very close to going extinct though and we want something with human look AND human mind. Just human mind or human look is totally different. So, we know have to do some extreme things. The natural probability of one species to survive should mirror the distribution between extinct species and living ones, because of the fact that it's chances on this earth-like world are just like that. That means that this early man has a 3% chance of surviving or going extinct. From a large population across north Africa, only some few caves are estimated to have survived the stress of the ice age and other events that created us. and from that, a population around 20,000 formed. So, 3% of 250,000 worlds. 75,000 worlds where men evolve, in our general shape and mind. From this, it narrows down even further. nuclear war, disease, etc etc.... you can guess how few survived. But there's no way to directly amke a probability of it.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


The Egyptian chopper is my favorite and is undeniably a cool artifact.

However, Egyptian hieroglyphs describe sounds to make words with, not pictures to represent things with. That's the Mayans, I believe.

Thus if they wrote it, it has had to be a new sound to them, represented by what they saw. A new way to say a word.

reply to post by Gorman91


Brilliant, thank you so very much.
2nd line

Originally posted by Gorman91
In gliese 581, the planet that is 1/3 bigger than earth? trees would be 3x shorter due to linear relationships between max height and gravity. Predators can reach trees then. That means no primates, because they can't escape predators, as that video we've all seen of the monkey annoying the tiger. No humans can ever exist. Too much gravity makes bipedal upright stature unfavorable. The crane system like dinosaurs is far easier. They win.

You're mixing your lifeforms from Gliese581 and Earth. You can't transplant Earthly predators to Gliese581, predators that would be capable of reaching the "primates"... Yes, increased gravity would produce shorter "trees," but it would also mean smaller, squatter, slower animate life, as well. It's all relative.

A predator on Gliese581 might only attain a size of a few inches tall, hypothetically, such that a "tree" on that planet would still be a formidable climb. The tree-dwelling "primates" may (and probably would be) even smaller than the predators, meaning they would be more fleet of foot, relatively speaking.

When you attempt to draw parallels between wholly different planets and their hypothetical lifeforms, you have to take the comparisons all the way, from the smallest microorganisms up to apex predators.

Even then, we have no way of knowing how Life can or will adapt.

Just 30 years ago, for example, we incredibly bright Earthlings had no idea that extremophiles existed in the deepest trenches of Earth's oceans, surviving without sunlight, surviving with little oxygen, surviving on toxic chemical meals at roasting temperatures, surviving and sometimes growing to immense sizes (in the case of the giant tube worms) under crushing pressures.

Discoveries such as this rewrote our understanding of how Life can adapt to the most extraordinary conditions.

Just so, we can't even begin to imagine how this pernicious thing called Life may adapt to otherwise toxic environments on other worlds. We may eventually discover silicon-based Life (if we can even recognize it) that breathes sulphuric acid and has liquid methane for blood.

We just don't know.

But this is way off topic. Sorry for the diversion.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


On higher gravity, trees would grow shorter, assuming that trees ever evolved at all. Indeed, you are right. So lets take it to the microbial life. How do they ever get off the sea floor? How can the float? Why even evolve legs at that point? It's more efficient to slither than walk. Creatures would grow big though. They would need to. Indeed, all is relative, and on higher gravity, more species converge Things like birds sharing different heights on trees becomes impossible. Creatures would bet big just to compete better. This would make strong back bones though. In fact, if we take it from microbes all the way up, in decreases the probability of humanoids ever more.

You're right, there's no way of telling. But we can use Earth as an example. Because if anyone is going to say you can't use earth as a template when you want to believe humanoid life can for, you're going to be looking quite foolish. Not you, because you admit it's not likely.

So this just reinforces my point.


Now, to take it back on topic, look back at my Hindu example. Humans would draw these beings, bu tin human form, because that's what humans do: apply humanness to what is not human. The preschool years of personification. Using the aboriginals as a template, we would see their ships and technology.

Specifically though, it would be cool seeing shaking hands and "tentacles" The feeling of alien skin would definably be drawn.

Originally posted by Gorman91
However, Egyptian hieroglyphs describe sounds to make words with, not pictures to represent things with. That's the Mayans, I believe. if they wrote it, it has had to be a new sound to them, represented by what they saw. A new way to say a word.

Actually, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are different ages of Egyptian writing that range from representational pictographs up to phonetic symbols such as the hieroglyphs, as well as combinations of the different writing styles.

We do the same thing today with modern English. Our English today — filled to brimming with symbolic acronyms — would be nearly incomprehensible to English-speakers and English-writers of a couple of centuries ago.

If I went back to pre-Revolutionary America and tried to engage anyone in a discussion of UFOs or USOs, or the FBI and CIA and KGB, or the latest on the DNC and GOP, or government entities such as the IRS and DOD, or controversies surrounding AGW, or the latest news on CBS or ABC or CNN or MSNBC, they'd put me under the looney bin.

Yet any English-speaker reading this post immediately understood the meanings and extended information implied by those acronyms. You probably didn't even slow down as you scanned over them, but each acronym conveyed a wealth of meaning in its own right.

This is very much the way ancient Egyptians communicated by hieroglyphics, a dizzying combination of pictographs and phonetic spellings and cartouches, et cetera.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I know what you mean. I just finished a course including the architecture of ancient Egypt, their writing system being a topic. However, this is an imperial tomb describing the history of a god-king. To use anything but the language of the elites would be shameful.

That said, I will not deny it's obvious parallel with modern technology. I will even point out the oddity of its discovery DURING the very moments these technologies exist, and no other, almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.

I'll even say that the image on the far right half broken almost looks like a stargate, specifically seen in the original movie on the wall:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
1% of 100 billion= 1 billion + 2% mid galactic radius= 2 bil + 3% for our area= 3 bill.

You didn't mention if this is already factored in your 1% but I think that's probably a little bit generous.

Drake equation

most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres)

But very detailed analysis on the math.

Regarding the OP, I think we can look at art today and see a variety of styles by artist and by culture, so I don't think we should assume any consistent interpretations of artwork from other times or cultures, the reasons for the art could be just as varied. Someone trying to find the beings Picasso painted would have a hard time locating them, . Also, some of the Hindu gods look pretty freaky and are represented in art, do you really think those existed? So while I agree that some art may be an accurate representation of what was observed, it seems shortsighted to assume that would always be the case, I would make no such assumptions.

That one image posted in this thread with all the orange halos around the heads and hollow looking eyes looks sort of like a drawing of ghosts to me but I have no idea what the true intent is, I don't assume it was meant to show aliens.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I may copy and paste the math into another topic, but I wanted to mention that art is very interesting. The history of human culture tells us that art should naturally develop to more advanced stages, but looking at primitive cultures, we find radically different developmental stages, but that art usually gets to its highest during peaceful times after some major event. The times between civilization and the death of the Neanderthals marks a period of peace. hunter-gathering, and nothing but villages everywhere. This in time turned to farming communities globally and eventually civilization. A time great for good art forms to form.

Originally posted by Gorman91

I know what you mean. I just finished a course including the architecture of ancient Egypt, their writing system being a topic. However, this is an imperial tomb describing the history of a god-king. To use anything but the language of the elites would be shameful.

so what? that doesn't change the fact that ramesses II replaced his fathers name with his own by filling it in and re carving it.

That said, I will not deny it's obvious parallel with modern technology. I will even point out the oddity of its discovery DURING the very moments these technologies exist, and no other, almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.

it is a self fulfilling prophecy, we didn't have helicopters when they first found it. this is nothing but selection confirmation. do you have proof that we even had helicopters when they found it? i believe the temple of seti I was explored in 1909

I'll even say that the image on the far right half broken almost looks like a stargate, specifically seen in the original movie on the wall:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Gorman91]

only if you look at the distorted version of the glyph, the real one hardly looks like what people claim it looks like.

reply to post by demongoat


Well I didn't know that. I thought it was found in the 1970s. My bad.

reply to post by Phage


I wouldn't have said 'primitive'...more 'rustic'.

Due to materials used and access or lack thereof of more refined materials.

I'm sure some of the artisans among the various indigenous peoples could turn out artwork that would rival contemporary art, given access to higher grade materials, so not primitive.

If you re-read the OP, it is stated that these are contemporary works of art, albeit alongside works that date back 15,000 years.

At the same time you never know that , the cave paintings could all just be artistic license and may well be the imaginings of a caveman
much like we create stories or comic books !

it is a thought to consider !

Although there is pretty good reasons as to why they painted them on the walls because they believed they were so important !

What I find odd though is that there are these images which look like aliens and ufo's and they are also displayed in mayan carvings the tomb of king paqal the sky god , his sarcophagus is carved in what looks like a space capsul with instruments, foot pedals and levers

see image



It can be interpreted as a man inside a capsule operating what look like levers and has a nasal tube and also fire coming out of the bottom !

reply to post by Gorman91


I didn't read the rest of your post because of the faulty tree argument. You see trees aren't all the same size even on this planet.

let's say your hypothesis has some merit...so lets consider the redwood that on this planet grows to 370 feet. divide that by three, that's 123.3333 feet; that still offers ample height even if all the creatures weren't stunted and diminutive. primate like creatures WILL survive...

even among humans, two completely unrelated humans can look like twins. so, there are ETs that, at the very least, look very similar. sort of like how bats and birds both have wings...

Hmmm, forgive me for being skeptical but how is it that the drawings show the ship's rudder?
Wouldn't they be obscured by water?

ABout the alien primates and trees and gravity !

Well we cant say for certain that evolution on earth is anything like evolution on another earth like planet , it may work completely different on another planet we just dont know !

reply to post by reject


However, red woods only evolved to their height because ancient sauropods competed with them, making them that height. We find no tall trees before sauropods evolved. If there was higher gravity, sauropods would never evolve due to the necessary backbone being very difficult to develop. No sauropods? No redwoods or tall trees. No tall trees? No place for primates to hide.

There's speculation that competition between trees themselves would generate taller trees. However, this is untrue. Because. for the whole of the Permian up to the first sauropods, there was not much growth beyond the height of the tallest leave eaters. The Triassic saw the evolution of Plateosaurus and other prosauropods. Once they came, tree heights started growing.


So I'm sorry to break your bubble, but I think you should look into the butterfly effect, especially with evolution and causality.

reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks


Why yes, yes it does. But I'd expect a few developments of shipyards by the time of planes flying around.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
reply to post by hoghead cheese

 

Here's a site that not only explains Pharaoh's Helicopter, it provides translations of the various layers of messaging:

Pharaoh's Helicopter?

The only correction that I make to my original post is that this carving was not discovered in an ancient tomb; it was, rather, discovered as a lintel over a doorway in an ancient Egyptian temple at Abydos.

There are no other "depictions" of helicopter-like craft found anywhere in any Egyptian pictographs or hieroglyphs.

This is a clear case of modern observers projecting their technological fantasies onto ancient renderings.

— Doc Velocity

This is pretty good.

vejprty.com...

It talks about the palimpsest and he doesn't buy it. That doesn't mean anything, but just a website to look at.