Ancient nuclear war and technology


#61

[QUOTE=thomas;49040]So do you think what you believe based on your facts and observations is superior to what Christians believe?[/QUOTE]

Facts are not to be “believed” in, they are scientific proof. They are not “my” facts and observations, they are just facts. Fact is truth and belief is hypothesis. Hypothesis need to be proven before they become facts. You have a hypothesis that leads you to believe in religion. I have scientific facts that we evolved as a species and moved out of East Africa.


#62

You are assuming a standard jet propulsion or rocket system. Rather, this is a different propulsion system. In fact Nietzsche, we are already building engines uncanningly similar to the one described in the Sansrit text - and one of the fuels we have used is indeed mercury(as well xenon and ceasium):

A form of electric space propulsion in which ions are accelerated by an electrostatic field to produce a high-speed (typically about 30 km/s) exhaust. An ion engine has a high specific impulse (making it very fuel-efficient) but a very low thrust. Therefore, it is useless in the atmosphere or as a launch vehicle, but extremely useful in space where a small amount of thrust over a long period can result in a big difference in velocity. This makes an ion engine particularly useful for two applications: (1) as a final thruster to nudge a satellite into a higher orbit and or for orbital maneuvering or station-keeping, and (2) as a means of propelling deep-space probes by thrusting over a period of months to provide a high final velocity. The source of electrical energy for an ion engine can be either solar (see solar-electric propulsion) or nuclear (see nuclear-electric propulsion).

On Aug. 1, 1961, NASA awarded a contract to the Astro-Electronics Division of RCA to design and build a payload capsule for flight-testing electric propulsion engines. The program called for seven capsules, three for ground tests and four for actual flight tests. Each capsule was expected to carry two electric engines. The first was expected to carry one cesium-fueled ion-engine representing Stuhlinger’s design with the Hughes engine. The second was expected to carry one mercury-fueled ion engine representing Kaufman’s design with the Lewis engine. Plans called for the engines to operate from 1 to 2 kW of power. Hughes demonstrated an ion engine on Sep. 27, 1961, at its research laboratories in Malibu. Stuhlinger was among those on hand to greet the scientific and technical writers who attended the event.

Ion propulsion - also known as solar-electric propulsion because of its dependence on electricity from solar panels - has been under development since the 1950s. Dr. Harold Kaufman, a NASA engineer, built the first ion engine in 1959. In the 1960s, NASA Glenn undertook a spaceflight test program called Space Electric Rocket Test (SERT).

In 1964, a pair of NASA Glenn ion engines were launched on a Scout rocket under the name SERT 1; one of the two thrusters onboard did not work, but the other operated for 31 minutes. NASA Glenn also lead the way for a follow-up mission, SERT 2, which carried two ion thrusters, one operating for more than five months and the other for nearly three months.

Many early ion engines used mercury or caesium instead of xenon. SERT 1 carried one mercury and one caesium engine, while SERT 2 had two mercury engines. Apart from the fuel, these ion drives were similar to Deep Space 1’s; the mercury or caesium would be turned into a gas, bombarded with electrons to ionise it, then electrostatically accelerated out the rear of the engine.

But mercury and caesium proved to be difficult to work with. At room temperature, mercury is a liquid and caesium is a solid; both must be heated to turn them into gases. After exiting the ion engine, many mercury or caesium atoms would cool and condense on the exterior of the spacecraft. Eventually researchers turned to xenon as a cleaner and simpler fuel for ion engines.

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Science-Fact-Ion-Propulsion/A_1403/article.html

Now if we compare the description given of the mercury-engine in the Sanskrit text we will find they are uncanninly similar:

The ion engine using the mercuy source first heats up the mercury source contained in the craft either using solar-electric means or nuclear means, which then become ionized and the high speed ions are then through a controlled manner(in this case using electric fields) is used to provide thrust.
The Sanskrit text says that the mercuy engine is the interior of the aircraft, containing 4 metal containers containing mercury, it is then headed in a controller manner through a special iron apparatus, which causes the latent power within mercury to be released providing a thrust causing an instant velocity. (Note, although such an engine would not work in the atmosphere, it would work in space and literally then it would become like a pearl in the sky. )

I think what is clear that this is a secondary description. This sanskrit text is suppose to be a redaction by a 10th century Indian king Bhoja of a much older literature on engineering. It is more a compilation than an actual how-to-build guide of ancient knowledge on engineering. The fact that it is describing in such clear detail a mercury engine for an aircraft cannot be ignored. The fact of the matter is this text is also describing machines that we know for a fact exist(such as mechnical computers to calculate astronomical positions)

And by the way, the Vimanas you speak of SD, are not aerodynamically savvy. I believe an Indian university examined the aircraft designs in these shastras and found that they violated the principles of aerodynamics AND Newton’s laws.

You are talking of the Viamanika shastra here and the pictures the designs were drawn up by an illustrater. This text has dubious origins because it has been channeled and there is no evidence that this text existed. The Sanskrit text I mentioned though is authentic.


#63

[QUOTE=Star Light;49041]Facts are not to be “believed” in, they are scientific proof. They are not “my” facts and observations, they are just facts. Fact is truth and belief is hypothesis. Hypothesis need to be proven before they become facts. You have a hypothesis that leads you to believe in religion. I have scientific facts that we evolved as a species and moved out of East Africa.[/QUOTE]

That’s what you think. And you are entitled to to your ignorance. You have not studied Christianity, but are regurgitating what you have heard.

But you are still dodging the question. You believe as you do based on what you believe are facts and you believe Christians believe in a “sky fairy” based on a hypothesis.

So you don’t think what you believe is superior to what the Christians believe? Why not?


#64

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;49001]Sources please? According to my research, I saw that biologists used to say it took 6-8 years; nowadays they assert it is an ongoing process, out of the reluctance to assign an exact time span to such bodily developments.[/QUOTE]

Well over half of the body is H2O. How long do you think it would take??? :rolleyes:
The skeleton takes the longest to replace cellularly & that only takes 2yrs.

(edit: I just checked my notes & I can’t tell if that’s a 1 or 7. Man, my handwriting sucks. I have to go look up the isotope studies again…)


#65

[QUOTE=thomas;49049]That’s what you think. And you are entitled to to your ignorance. You have not studied Christianity, but are regurgitating what you have heard.

But you are still dodging the question. You believe as you do based on what you believe are facts and you believe Christians believe in a “sky fairy” based on a hypothesis.

So you don’t think what you believe is superior to what the Christians believe? Why not?[/QUOTE]

I was raised a christian, taught sunday school, and went to a christian school. I have studied christianity. I’m sorry your assumption was wrong. I am not just regurgitating what I have heard, I have seen with my own eyes the skulls of pre homo sapiens that lead to the fact of evolution. Seeing a line of skulls in a lab that shows the clear evolution that took place is not a sign of ignorance. You clearly are ignorant because you believe things that are written in a book that has no scientific backing. I understand the need for cultures to identify a supreme being to help them explain things that they cannot. I don’t have a problem with christianity or any other religion. To answer your question directly, yes. I believe science is far superior to any religious hypothesis regardless of the religion.


#66

[QUOTE=thomas;49049]That’s what you think. And you are entitled to to your ignorance. You have not studied Christianity, but are regurgitating what you have heard.

But you are still dodging the question. You believe as you do based on what you believe are facts and you believe Christians believe in a “sky fairy” based on a hypothesis.

So you don’t think what you believe is superior to what the Christians believe? Why not?[/QUOTE]

Comparing scientific study of evolution to some desert religion is like asking "Which is better? Knowledge of Small Motor Mechanics or Football?"
Both consume many Sundays. People are knowledgeable about both and both subjects can get quite technical. However, one of them helps you mow the lawn, fix your boat or tune up your motorcycle, while watching football… well, it’s absolutely useless in spite of what people might think or how much they enjoy it.


#67

[QUOTE=Star Light;49051]I was raised a christian, taught sunday school, and went to a christian school. I have studied christianity. I’m sorry your assumption was wrong. I am not just regurgitating what I have heard, I have seen with my own eyes the skulls of pre homo sapiens that lead to the fact of evolution. Seeing a line of skulls in a lab that shows the clear evolution that took place is not a sign of ignorance. You clearly are ignorant because you believe things that are written in a book that has no scientific backing. I understand the need for cultures to identify a supreme being to help them explain things that they cannot. I don’t have a problem with christianity or any other religion. To answer your question directly, yes. I believe science is far superior to any religious hypothesis regardless of the religion.[/QUOTE]

So if I believe, based on what I know, that my religious beliefs are superior to other religious beliefs, based on what I know and undertand about them, what is wrong with that?

And I have not denied any possibility of evolution. What makes you think a Christian cannot believe in evolution?

I don’t believe the Bible is a science book. It most certainly is not, and is not intended to be.

Science and religion are two different things. I believe what science reveals and believe what my religion teaches, which does not contradict science. The God of my religion is the same God of nature and science, so the two are in harmony.


#68

[QUOTE=thomas;49054]So if I believe, based on what I know, that my religious beliefs are superior to other religious beliefs, based on what I know and undertand about them, what is wrong with that?

And I have not denied any possibility of evolution. What makes you think a Christian cannot believe in evolution?

I don’t believe the Bible is a science book. It most certainly is not, and is not intended to be.[/QUOTE]

Cultural Anthropology shows the need for a culture to identify a supreme being for coping with an afterlife, weather events, and rites of passage. I understand the need for them, but when you boil it down it’s all the same thing. If you do understand evolution, good on ya. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a “GOD”, and that is why I don’t subscribe to it. I’m glad you don’t think that the Bible is scientific. You might want to spread that around because creation is taught in religious schools as fact and not theory. Evolution is completely dismissed.


#69

Your experience with Christianity and your upbringing must have been Evangelical. Your experience has been with sola scriptura Christians, I would wager, and not with Catholics.

And I can tell you are a Brit. Do you know what gave that away?


#70

[QUOTE=thomas;49057]Your experience with Christianity and your upbringing must have been Evangelical. Your experience has been with sola scriptura Christians, I would wager, and not with Catholics.

And I can tell you are a Brit. Do you know what gave that away?[/QUOTE]

Why do you say I’m a Brit? I’m curious how you came to that conclusion.


#71

[QUOTE=Star Light;49058]Why do you say I’m a Brit? I’m curious how you came to that conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Do you deny it?


#72

[QUOTE=thomas;49059]Do you deny it?[/QUOTE]

Yes I do. I’m a Southern California girl, born and raised.


#73

Whoah…was I ever wrong. How I did I mistake a valley girl for a Brit?

OK, well you win some and you lose some, and my credibilty regarding my powers of perception has been dealt a considerable blow, but I’ll bounce back.

Anyway, why I thought you were a Brit is because you said “good ON ya,” instead of “good FOR ya (or you).”

That was something I noticed about Brits on other boards, is that they would say, “good on you,” instead of “good for you,” which seems to be the norm in the US, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone in the US use “on” instead of “for.”


#74

[QUOTE=thomas;49062]Whoah…was I ever wrong. How I did I mistake a valley girl for a Brit?

OK, well you win some and you lose some, and my credibilty regarding my powers of perception has been dealt a considerable blow, but I’ll bounce back.

Anyway, why I thought you were a Brit is because you said “good ON ya,” instead of “good FOR ya (or you).”

That was something I noticed about Brits on other boards, is that they would say, “good on you,” instead of “good for you,” which seems to be the norm in the US, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone in the US use “on” instead of “for.”[/QUOTE]

I’m not a valley girl, I’m a desert rat. Big difference. Instead of shop, I hike. I don’t wear dresses or heels, I wear sandals and tie dye. I guess I can contribute some of my slang on the many “Brit” profs I had in college. Sitting in class for up to 8 hours a week, the slang starts to slip in.


#75

I traveled from LA across southern CA to AZ and beyond just a couple of weeks ago.

Sandals, and tye dye? Are you a hippie?

Makes no difference to me, of course. But what are you doing on this board? Do you do yoga? Can you do a headstand? If not, you really should not be posting on this board, as that is a prerequisite.

But back to the point…your experience must be with “bible only” Christians. I can understand a frustration with those who are literalists, who believe the earth was created in a literal seven days, etc. But they mean well.


#76

[QUOTE=thomas;49064]I traveled from LA across southern CA to AZ and beyond just a couple of weeks ago.

Sandals, and tye dye? Are you a hippie?

Makes no difference to me, of course. But what are you doing on this board? Do you do yoga? Can you do a headstand? If not, you really should not be posting on this board, as that is a prerequisite.

But back to the point…your experience must be with “bible only” Christians. I can understand a frustration with those who are literalists, who believe the earth was created in a literal seven days, etc. But they mean well.[/QUOTE]

I do yoga. I’ve enrolled in Yoga Teacher Training that begins in April. I’ve done yoga since I was 15. I wouldn’t call myself a hippie, but I do enjoy granola, The Grateful Dead, and tie dye. Thanks to my gymnastics training I have been able to do a headstand since I was 7.

My experience is with literalist christians. I find frustration not only in the “earth was created in literally seven days”, but also the judgment that most of them have.


#77

I suppose you can do awesome handstands too…I wish I could. But I’m getting there.

I have been able to do great headstands since I was 54, and I’m 55 now. I learned a little late in life, but because of yoga, can do all kinds of things I couldn’t do when I was 30. (Except see well. So far yoga has not brought my eyesight back to what it was).

But I don’t truly do “yoga”–I do asanas. There is much I am skeptical of, and much I don’t believe. I don’t accept some of the way-out concepts I’ve heard about, such as kundalini, chakras, reincarnation, and all kinds of other things I can’t pronounce. Many of these things seem faith-based, so I am wondering if you accept the totality of yoga.

There does seem to be a judgemental type of Christan, but as a convert to Catholicism as an adult 17 years ago, have not seen much of that in the Catholic Church.


#78

[QUOTE=thomas;49067]I suppose you can do awesome handstands too…I wish I could. But I’m getting there.

I have been able to do great headstands since I was 54, and I’m 55 now. I learned a little late in life, but because of yoga, can do all kinds of things I couldn’t do when I was 30. (Except see well. So far yoga has not brought my eyesight back to what it was).

But I don’t truly do “yoga”–I do asanas. There is much I am skeptical of, and much I don’t believe. I don’t accept some of the way-out concepts I’ve heard about, such as kundalini, chakras, reincarnation, and all kinds of other things I can’t pronounce. Many of these things seem faith-based, so I am wondering if you accept the totality of yoga.

There does seem to be a judgemental type of Christan, but as a convert to Catholicism as an adult 17 years ago, have not seen much of that in the Catholic Church.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I can do handstands. I’m pretty flexible so yoga came pretty naturally to me. I can’t see that well either. I’m diabetic and it is finally starting to mess with my eyes. I meditate and do asanas. I haven’t done a lot of study on the other areas of yoga. The study I have done I barely understand. I barely understand philosophy. My boyfriend studies it and I can’t wrap my head around it. I analyze things way too much, but it is what I am trained to do.


#79

I think you should look at a map.

Sandals, and tye dye? Are you a hippie?

Makes no difference to me, of course. But what are you doing on this board? Do you do yoga? Can you do a headstand? If not, you really should not be posting on this board, as that is a prerequisite.

No its not. If you’re being serious…
& if not, throw in a smiley every once in a while. :rolleyes:

You may think that being Homosexual is “a sin” or whatever.
It may be for you but it isn’t for many millions of the rest of us.
The only reason you think it’s a sin is because you were taught that and decided to believe it. However, that doesn’t make it “right”, it’s just what you & your friends have decided to believe.

You try to compare your belief system to scientific fact. You fail.

In some failed attempt to interpret her speech patterns you failed again.

In another attempt at some kind of authority you got bossy as to who “should be posting on this board” & who shouldn’t. You failed again.

Why don’t you take a break?

But back to the point…your experience must be with “bible only” Christians. I can understand a frustration with those who are literalists, who believe the earth was created in a literal seven days, etc. But they mean well.

So, you’re not a “literalist”? How much of the Bible do you take “literally”, & why would you choose to be a stickler on church doctrine on homosexuality?
It’s much smarter to be stickler on something improvable or intangible, rather than something that science is just a hair’s breadth away from definitively proving to be pure biology, like homosexuality.


#80

[QUOTE=Indra Deva;49031]Many things are possible. That does not mean that they are “plausible” or “literally true”.
How about this: THE EGYPTIANS BUILT THE PYRAMIDS. Just because you don’t know how they did it doesn’t mean that you should expound the problem with even more things that you don’t know.
Let’s try to keep Ockham from rolling in his grave and exhaust the truly plausible options before you start adding Extraterrestrials into the equation.
& who are these “far more qualified” people who attribute pyramids to aliens? Hmmm? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand your anger. You seem to have a closed mind on this. I don’t. There are things that can’t be explained just by saying “the Egyptians did it”. I can’t name names. I’m referring to some academics who had a documentary on TV within the past year. Their theory is that the Egyptians did in fact build the pyramids. The question is, under whose direction?