Message boards : SETI@home Science : Construction technics over time and 12000 miles apart.
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 19193 Credit: 22,837,257 RAC: 20,189 |
The plans themselves would be a work of art and would be stored somewhere. Modern man might think that, but I suspect in the case of tombs at least the plans were ordered destroyed. Harder to loot them if you don't know were to look. |
Chris S Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Nov 00 Posts: 38538 Credit: 23,797,490 RAC: 38,764 |
Plans of the LOCATION were indeed destroyed to protect the tombs. Plans of the CONSTRUCTION have yet to be found. |
OzzFan Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15262 Credit: 50,136,327 RAC: 70,265 |
Plans of the LOCATION were indeed destroyed to protect the tombs. Plans of the CONSTRUCTION have yet to be found. Safe to assume they were also destroyed? |
Johnney Guinness Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 11 Sep 06 Posts: 3093 Credit: 2,652,287 RAC: 0 |
Plans of the LOCATION were indeed destroyed to protect the tombs. Plans of the CONSTRUCTION have yet to be found. Maybe they already have excavated the construction plans. Maybe the construction plans are in plain view of everybody but they think they are something else! Maybe the construction plans don't look like the typical Egyptian writings. Or maybe the people interpreting the hieroglyphs are reading them wrong. You could say, hidden, but in plain view of millions of people. Thats the best hint i could ever give you guys. John. |
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 19193 Credit: 22,837,257 RAC: 20,189 |
Plans of the LOCATION were indeed destroyed to protect the tombs. Plans of the CONSTRUCTION have yet to be found. The location of the secret room with all the treasure, I think that is the construction plan. |
Chris S Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Nov 00 Posts: 38538 Credit: 23,797,490 RAC: 38,764 |
There is a difference between the plans of the physical layout of things, and the construction methods used to achieve them. Neither have so far been found, or interpreted. |
Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 2721 Credit: 969,739 RAC: 2,290 |
It's way more amazing to me that both Newton and Leibniz concurrently and independent of each other created calculus. I'm not, however, proposing an alien influence. It's more that as man's knowledge of the world increases certain skills can arise more or less identically and yet independent of outside influence. Bob DeWoody My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3252 Credit: 1,295,937 RAC: 297 |
Archimedes and Eudoxus essentially had the idea of calculus some 400 years before Christ. They used "the method of exhaustion". Archimedes was one of the greatest minds ever and Eudoxus was a student of Plato. Now we are re-inventing Calculus by using the Hyper Reals. |
tullio Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 5872 Credit: 1,202,980 RAC: 1,391 |
Archimedes and Eudoxus essentially had the idea of calculus some 400 years before Christ. They used "the method of exhaustion". Archimedes was one of the greatest minds ever and Eudoxus was a student of Plato. Now we are re-inventing Calculus by using the Hyper Reals. Do you mean complex numbers? They were invented by Girolamo Cardano in 1545, as described by Roger Penrose in his book "Shadows of the mind", page 249 and following. Tullio |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3252 Credit: 1,295,937 RAC: 297 |
Tullio No not the complex numbers which have been added to number theory some time ago. The Hyper Reals are infinitesimals that are greater than zero but smaller than any real number and their compliments which are larger than any real number. Sounds like fantasy but so does Cantor's ordering of infinities by matching one to one correspondences. Just as complex numbers and imaginary numbers are real enough for us electrical engineers so are the hyper reals in being able to prove all theorems in calculus more easily than by using limits. Since I can see this utility I am suspending my intuitive beliefs and learning all i can about them. My hope is that they will lead me to an explanation of the Planck limit and of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and possibly give some insight to quantum mechanics. I don't pretend to have the intellect to unravel the mysteries here but perhaps there might be some possible hints at why ordinary math can't seem work in Physics at the very small and very large scales. I always felt queasy about dividing by delta x and then throwing away the square of delta x in calculus by using limits. |
Chris S Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Nov 00 Posts: 38538 Credit: 23,797,490 RAC: 38,764 |
I've had a quick look into Hyperreals, now my brain hurts!! The system of hyperreal numbers represents a rigorous method of treating the infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R that contains numbers greater than anything of the form 1 + 1 + \cdots + 1. \, Such a number is infinite, and its inverse is infinitesimal. The term "hyper-real" was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948. Way over my head :-( |
jason_gee Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7331 Credit: 87,970,373 RAC: 10,577 |
Way over my head :-( That's the funny part, you come to learn teaching this stuff to mature age students with learning difficulties. It isn't over your head, just was never explained to you properly. That particular formula represents an instantanious rate of change.. i.e. slope, which you use everyday without thinking about it even to set things upright. It's part of the modern introductory calculus tutorials that students typically follow over a 3 to 6 month period, which is approximately the same rate that Newton & Leibniz are credited with forming this 'new' way of handling infinite precision in abstract maths ... otherwise known as functions of the real world. jason "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
tullio Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 5872 Credit: 1,202,980 RAC: 1,391 |
I've always liked more algebra than infinitesimal calculus. You have the feeling that you are dealing with solid objects, like bricks or LEGO pieces. So I did my thesis in theoretical physics using group theory and Lie algebras. I liked it a lot. Tullio |
Chris S Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Nov 00 Posts: 38538 Credit: 23,797,490 RAC: 38,764 |
You are maybe right Jason, but I was actually quite good at formulas and Algebra at school. To this day I still cant get the hang of differentiation, but I find it all fascinating stuff nevertheless. If only I was cleverer I could earn a few dollars .... Millennium problems |
ML1 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 9237 Credit: 6,049,612 RAC: 1,489 |
You are maybe right Jason, but I was actually quite good at formulas and Algebra at school. To this day I still cant get the hang of differentiation, but I find it all fascinating stuff nevertheless. If only I was cleverer... I'm sure you're clever enough... It's just merely a case of perspective... ;-) A beautiful example from 'many' years ago is: Zeno's paradoxes Zeno's paradoxes are a set of philosophical problems generally thought to have been devised by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (ca. 490 - 430 BC)... Can you disentangle his paradoxes for Achilles and the tortoise, and that of an arrow in flight? You should find the view that is the paradox and why the paradox isn't a paradox in reality "of interest"... (A beer and a local pub might help.) "Calculus" is then a very small step from there (if you realise the pun ;-) ) that spans a few thousand years! Keep searchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia5 See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Chris S Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Nov 00 Posts: 38538 Credit: 23,797,490 RAC: 38,764 |
Oh I iz quite clever believe me. The tortoise and the bus paradoxes are paradoxes, simply because theory does not predict what happens in practice. A man running will eventually catch up with the tortoise and pass it. If a bus is stationary, than a man walking or running will eventually be able to get on it. However people can use maths to prove that it couldn't happen "in theory". So what use are these paradoxes to anyone? Nothing, they are just intellectual exercises for the sake of it. It's the same with Sophisms, just intellectual exercises. Sophisms Next. :-) |
ML1 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 9237 Credit: 6,049,612 RAC: 1,489 |
Oh I iz quite clever believe me. The tortoise and the bus paradoxes are paradoxes, simply because theory does not predict what happens in practice. Not at all. That is just an unthinking fob-off... Now try thinking again. There is great insight to be gained in why the paradox is a paradox and how the paradox works. Seeing why that particular paradox is a paradox, and what extra detail is needed to unravel that, is very significant for understanding your reality. There is also a magic key in there for appreciating calculus. All with very real-world application. Try looking again? What is the key premise that artificially makes the paradox the paradox it is? Keep searchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia5 See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Chris S Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Nov 00 Posts: 38538 Credit: 23,797,490 RAC: 38,764 |
There is great insight to be gained in why the paradox is a paradox and how the paradox works. Seeing why that particular paradox is a paradox, and what extra detail is needed to unravel that, is very significant for understanding your reality. Ok lets think again, this is my take upon it, which is a slightly different to Aristotle but intrinsically the same. The man & the tortoise and the man & the bus are two similar paradoxes, that use the same conjecture, i.e. that before you can travel the whole distance you must first have travelled halfway. Then before you can travel the rest of the distance you must next have travelled half way of the remainder to travel. This is represented by the series X=1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32 ...... etc. Each term being half of the preceding term. By simple inspection it can be seen that the series is infinite, and will never end. There is a difference between them though in that one has two moving objects, and one has a fixed and a moving object. Lets examine the tortoise one first. The tortoise starts off first and some time later the man starts off behind it. He sees where the tortoise is and travels half way to THAT point. When he gets there, he sees where the tortoise is NOW, which is a bit further on than he saw before. So he again travels half way of the distance. Using that logic he could get to within a millionth of an inch of the tortoise but never catch it. Of course in practice once he is that close, one stride and he is in front. Now the bus. He sees where the bus is and travels half way to it. When he gets there, he then travels halfway of the remaining distance. and so on. Using that same logic he could get to within a millionth of an inch of the bus but not reach it. Of course in practice once he is that close, he just hops on the bus. It all depends upon which question you ask! If you ask can the man ever reach the tortoise or bus, then the answer is no. If you were to ask 1. Could the man ever get close enough to the tortoise so that he could jump over it, then the answer is yes. At that point the infinite series stops, and a new event takes place. 2. Could the man ever get close enough to the bus that he could hop on it, the answer is yes. At that point the infinite series stops, and a new event takes place. So how did Zeno manage to confuse us? Zeno's argument is based on the assumption that you can infinitely divide space (the race track) and time (how long it takes to run). By dividing the race track into an infinite number of pieces, Zeno's argument turned the race into an infinite number of steps that seemed as if they would never end. However, each step is decreasing, and so dividing space and therefore time into smaller and smaller pieces implies that the passage of time is 'slowing down' and can never reach the moment where Achilles passes the Tortoise. We know that time doesn't slow down in this way. The assumption that space (and time) is infinitely divisible is wrong. Happy now? You owe me a beer :-) |
Larry Monske Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 281 Credit: 554,328 RAC: 0 |
The ratio 1.6 to 1 is used everywhere in ancient time. Divinci,s man arms extended arm to elbow 1.6, fingertip to fingertip 1.6 to the surrounding circle. Feet spead to even with shoulders 1.6, Even cubits in the bible uses this 1.6 number. That exact same formula is used in mesioamerica also. The parthanons pillars are curved 1.6 for the lenght of the pillar inwards i forgotten the lenght of them I think 80 feet. |
Larry Monske Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 281 Credit: 554,328 RAC: 0 |
You guys mentioned blueing surfaces and grinding them to exact size. I was a machinest in the service and helped doing every steam valve while in drydock. Carberundum and grind away measure blue again and final check and done. I did some amazing machine work on the Enterprise CVAN 65. I even got to measure gears and swipe parts inside reduction gears. Rebuilt a feedpump entirely in 24 hours with 5 other guys. All new main bearings new shafts new valves, got a comendation for that one. |
Message boards :
SETI@home Science :
Construction technics over time and 12000 miles apart.
©2017 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.