Ancient Reality

[cladking]

You do not appear to know what "ancient science" was.

Give that man a cigar!

Millions of scientists and metaphysicians created ancient science in 40,000 years. A lot of them were a lot "smarter" than I.

I have spent a mere decade trying to redevelop it but it will probably take a small army of scientists half a century to get as far as the ancients were. It would take far longer but we have modern science and computers to aid in the process. Truth to tell I shouldn't be overly surprised if a few sharp guys could get together and work out an overall perspective much faster. Part of the problem though is that ancient mathematics has yet to be deciphered. It appears to be cardinal but there are dozens of geniuses working on it and still unsuccessfully.

Much of it can be deduced just by remembering their perspective was from the now and inside rather than timeless and from infinite distance. They anthropomorphized reality itself and set its rhythm to the human heartbeat giving us 60 sec / min and 60 min / hr as well as 360 days per years (with five and a quarter left over. 1/ 64th was always "wasted". The basics of the science really aren't hard to understand but most people don't want to give up their preconceptions and look at reality from another perspective. If ancient people dragged tombs up ramps for dead kings who never died then they were superstitious and there's nothing more to be said about it. No fact matters because we already know.

I've posted its axioms, names, and everything I have deduced about the math. It is all my own work but derived from facts, evidence, and deduction. Some of the math was pure genius but wholly alien to the way we think. Most of their science is the exact same way; wholly alien. It was no less true but we can't think in three dimensions and we can't think without experiencing thought.

Egyptologists just never even considered that these people were not exactly like Egyptologists and the authors of the "book of the dead". And this is where they went wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Give that man a cigar!

Millions of scientists and metaphysicians created ancient science in 40,000 years. A lot of them were a lot "smarter" than I.

I have spent a mere decade trying to redevelop it but it will probably take a small army of scientists half a century to get as far as the ancients were. It would take far longer but we have modern science and computers to aid in the process. Truth to tell I shouldn't be overly surprised if a few sharp guys could get together and work out an overall perspective much faster. Part of the problem though is that ancient mathematics has yet to be deciphered. It appears to be cardinal but there are dozens of geniuses working on it and still unsuccessfully.

Much of it can be deduced just by remembering their perspective was from the now and inside rather than timeless and from infinite distance. They anthropomorphized reality itself and set its rhythm to the human heartbeat giving us 60 sec / min and 60 min / hr as well as 360 days per years (with five and a quarter left over. 1/ 64th was always "wasted". The basics of the science really aren't hard to understand but most people don't want to give up their preconceptions and look at reality from another perspective. If ancient people dragged tombs up ramps for dead kings who never died then they were superstitious and there's nothing more to be said about it. No fact matters because we already know.

I've posted its axioms, names, and everything I have deduced about the math. It is all my own work but derived from facts, evidence, and deduction. Some of the math was pure genius but wholly alien to the way we think. Most of their science is the exact same way; wholly alien. It was no less true but we can't think in three dimensions and we can't think without experiencing thought.

Egyptologists just never even considered that these people were not exactly like Egyptologists and the authors of the "book of the dead". And this is where they went wrong.

Nonsense. There is no evidence for this. You just made it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Give that man a cigar!

Millions of scientists and metaphysicians created ancient science in 40,000 years. A lot of them were a lot "smarter" than I.

I have spent a mere decade trying to redevelop it but it will probably take a small army of scientists half a century to get as far as the ancients were. It would take far longer but we have modern science and computers to aid in the process. Truth to tell I shouldn't be overly surprised if a few sharp guys could get together and work out an overall perspective much faster. Part of the problem though is that ancient mathematics has yet to be deciphered. It appears to be cardinal but there are dozens of geniuses working on it and still unsuccessfully.

Much of it can be deduced just by remembering their perspective was from the now and inside rather than timeless and from infinite distance. They anthropomorphized reality itself and set its rhythm to the human heartbeat giving us 60 sec / min and 60 min / hr as well as 360 days per years (with five and a quarter left over. 1/ 64th was always "wasted". The basics of the science really aren't hard to understand but most people don't want to give up their preconceptions and look at reality from another perspective. If ancient people dragged tombs up ramps for dead kings who never died then they were superstitious and there's nothing more to be said about it. No fact matters because we already know.

I've posted its axioms, names, and everything I have deduced about the math. It is all my own work but derived from facts, evidence, and deduction. Some of the math was pure genius but wholly alien to the way we think. Most of their science is the exact same way; wholly alien. It was no less true but we can't think in three dimensions and we can't think without experiencing thought.

Egyptologists just never even considered that these people were not exactly like Egyptologists and the authors of the "book of the dead". And this is where they went wrong.

Oh my! Look! Over there! It is the woo bird of happiness!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I understood it just fine. And so far you have supported my claim that you do not appear to be able to support it. That also supports my claim of understanding it.

You do not appear to know what "ancient science" was. Here is a hint, it did not really exist. And you definitely got modern science wrong.

One more chance, would you care to support your claims. Explain what "real science" is. Or would you like to try to learn what science is? How it is done. The processes used etc..

And watch the personal insults. Those are against the rules here. I have merely pointed out your failures. I have not attempted to insult you.

Pointing out failures and things that are made up is not insulting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pointing out failures and things that are made up is not insulting.

True, but saying that one has a short attention span is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now there is a claim of Ancient Mathematics. No offer of any evidence for this. But clearly, in claiming it, the claimant is proposing they know something and understand something. Yet, oddly (not really), they cannot produce one shred of evidence for this or any other claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True, but saying that one has a short attention span is.

True. Especially when it is a baseless insult.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my! Look! Over there! It is the woo bird of happiness!

What do you think the Ancient Space Program was like? Did Ancient NASA have Ancient Space Shuttles?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now there is a claim of Ancient Mathematics. No offer of any evidence for this. But clearly, in claiming it, the claimant is proposing they know something and understand something. Yet, oddly (not really), they cannot produce one shred of evidence for this or any other claim.

2 + 2 sort of = 4?

 

[cladking]

I find the claim that something exists that no one does or can understand, yet all sorts of claims are made about the unknowable, unverifiable, unsupported Ancient Language, Ancient Science and Ancient Reality.

When I say "we don't understand" something, I am referring to Peers. They understand many things that I don't.

But while we don't understand AL, I do. I can't read it or think in it because I think like you and every homo omnisciencis. But I can model the meaning and interpret it in English. For the main part the literal meaning is the i9ntended meaning. When they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights", what they meant was "literally bring to me the actual boat that literally flies up and alights (on the top of the pyramid). There's nothing really complex about the language but my understanding of it is about on par with the understanding of a sharp five year old. It would take me a very long time to become proficient because I would have to relearn everything I know, get rid of all the mnemonics I use, and relearn how to think and accomplish this without ever thinking again. Once a person grows a broccas area it's going to be extremely difficult to learn AL. It was a one way trip for almost everybody. Most people just used the language they grew up with but many tens of thousands switched for personal, political, or economic reasons. This was especially true when the official language was changed in an event we know only as the "tower of Babel". Many people had to change to maintain their positions or income. But it was always a one way trip because the formatting and thinking for the two disparate languages were too enormous to go back. Thinking is easier than knowing and not always less profitable or less accurate.

I suppose it might be said I don't understand AL either, but the difference is I do understand the intended meaning of the author because I can model it, I solved the referents in context, and interpreting the literal meaning of words is not that difficult. If I didn't understand the writing then how did I know in advance there was a heat anomaly under the chevrons and another on the east side where the builders said the "cool is the crown path" intersects the side of the pyramid? Of course I understand it! How would new evidence support a universal language if I were wrong? Why would research into animal languages support my contentions? Why would my theory be logical and fit so much more of the evidence than Egyptological assumptions? Why would I notice there were no words for "thought", "belief", taxonomies, and abstractions while Egyptologists overlooked it? How would I know AL breaks Zipf's Law since they never noticed? Why are current beliefs highly illogical and wholly unsupported by evidence?

Why can't Egyptology make a simple prediction or explain why no burials have ever been found in any great pyramid. Why did the builders say literally that the pyramid is not a tomb dozens of times and never once said it is a tomb? Why are there no stone draggers and ramp builders in evidence? Why does every Egyptologist disagree on every single point except the fundamental assumptions?

They are illogical and can't make predictions because they are wrong.

 

[cladking]

2 + 2 sort of = 4?

Well... ...no.

I believe this could only be expressed as 2/4 + 2/4 equal 1 in ancient math. But I don't understand ancient math either and am still working on it.

There was no such thing as "counting" per se in ancient reality. There were no two identical things to count so everything equaled one or zero. It was essentially binary, I believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When I say "we don't understand" something, I am referring to Peers. They understand many things that I don't.

But while we don't understand AL, I do. I can't read it or think in it because I think like you and every homo omnisciencis. But I can model the meaning and interpret it in English. For the main part the literal meaning is the i9ntended meaning. When they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights", what they meant was "literally bring to me the actual boat that literally flies up and alights (on the top of the pyramid). There's nothing really complex about the language but my understanding of it is about on par with the understanding of a sharp five year old. It would take me a very long time to become proficient because I would have to relearn everything I know, get rid of all the mnemonics I use, and relearn how to think and accomplish this without ever thinking again. Once a person grows a broccas area it's going to be extremely difficult to learn AL. It was a one way trip for almost everybody. Most people just used the language they grew up with but many tens of thousands switched for personal, political, or economic reasons. This was especially true when the official language was changed in an event we know only as the "tower of Babel". Many people had to change to maintain their positions or income. But it was always a one way trip because the formatting and thinking for the two disparate languages were too enormous to go back. Thinking is easier than knowing and not always less profitable or less accurate.

I suppose it might be said I don't understand AL either, but the difference is I do understand the intended meaning of the author because I can model it, I solved the referents in context, and interpreting the literal meaning of words is not that difficult. If I didn't understand the writing then how did I know in advance there was a heat anomaly under the chevrons and another on the east side where the builders said the "cool is the crown path" intersects the side of the pyramid? Of course I understand it! How would new evidence support a universal language if I were wrong? Why would research into animal languages support my contentions? Why would my theory be logical and fit so much more of the evidence than Egyptological assumptions? Why would I notice there were no words for "thought", "belief", taxonomies, and abstractions while Egyptologists overlooked it? How would I know AL breaks Zipf's Law since they never noticed? Why are current beliefs highly illogical and wholly unsupported by evidence?

Why can't Egyptology make a simple prediction or explain why no burials have ever been found in any great pyramid. Why did the builders say literally that the pyramid is not a tomb dozens of times and never once said it is a tomb? Why are there no stone draggers and ramp builders in evidence? Why does every Egyptologist disagree on every single point except the fundamental assumptions?

They are illogical and can't make predictions because they are wrong.

You are referring to everyone else. No one can understand stuff that you make up.

You seem very confused and, frankly, I am at odds with feeding into your confusion or just ignoring you. I have seen this before. The more reality you try to show someone, the more they progress into their own confusion. On the other hand, I am totally against perpetuating false information and someone passing off fantasy as fact.

You claim things as if you know them, but you cannot show anyone anything to support your claims. Demands made to you to produce evidence in support of your claims go unanswered. You do often respond, but responding is not an answer. Your responses are usually compensation for the fact that you do not understand science, the evidence that is known or that you have shown us nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well... ...no.

I believe this could only be expressed as 2/4 + 2/4 equal 1 in ancient math. But I don't understand ancient math either and am still working on it.

There was no such thing as "counting" per se in ancient reality. There were no two identical things to count so everything equaled one or zero. It was essentially binary, I believe.

Exactly. You claim something as if you understand and then turn around and claim you don't understand. It cannot be both. This tells me a great deal though.

Clearly, you believe the fantasy you have cooked up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

2 + 2 sort of = 4?

1 and 1 are infinity divided by 7 and squirrels have a language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well... ...no.

I believe this could only be expressed as 2/4 + 2/4 equal 1 in ancient math. But I don't understand ancient math either and am still working on it.

There was no such thing as "counting" per se in ancient reality. There were no two identical things to count so everything equaled one or zero. It was essentially binary, I believe.

Well there is the understatement of the year.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well there is the understatement of the year.

I would say that the dismissal and attempts to discredit the peer review process is a defense mechanism in support of the fantasy. Since there has been no effort to support the wild claims, the only thing that can be done is to falsely conjure up a straw man of peer review and beat it to death.

What do you think?

 

[Aupmanyav]

2 + 2 sort of = 4?

Three or more than three.
The real ancient science was how to start a fire with two wooden sticks (Aranis) and then roast a fowl or a pig.
Sage Atharva brought the Fire-God to people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say that the dismissal and attempts to discredit the peer review process is a defense mechanism in support of the fantasy. Since there has been no effort to support the wild claims, the only thing that can be done is to falsely conjure up a straw man of peer review and beat it to death.

What do you think?

Sounds good to me. Or else he can pretend that no one even discussed his ideas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Three or more than three.
The real ancient science was how to roast a pig.

That sounds like some delicious ancient science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are mantras which should be recited when Fire-God is invoked (Agni Sthapanam). They are here, but in Devnagari script.
The Fire-God (Agni) has the second highest number of hymns in RigVeda after Indra (i.e., 250 to Indra and 200 for Agni). Even the first hymn of RigVeda is dedicated to Agni.

"aghnimīḷe purohitaṃ yajñasya devaṃ ṛitvījam l hotāraṃ ratna dhātamam ll
aghniḥ pūrvebhih ṛiṣibhih ḍyo nūtanairuta l sa devāneha vakṣati ll" RigVeda Book 1, Hymn 1, Verse 1-2
I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice, the convener of the sacrifice, lavisher of wealth.
Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers. He shall bring here the Gods.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda Book 1: HYMN I. Agni.