Why is the idea of long lost technology by previous civilizations so controversial in modern historiography?
I'm not one of those "hurr durr ancient Atlanteans made it" retards, but mention that the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks were more technologically advanced and had more scientific ingenuity than the populations of Imperial Rome and the Middle-Ages, and you see a modern historian frothing in the mouth.
We do have examples of things like the Giza pyramid, the Antikythera mechanism,Greek fire, and Archimedes’ Death Ray (ib4 myth busters, no it has been proven to work) suggests a level of technological sophistication that we are unable to explain.
I see your point, in a way, and there are better examples, like pottery Baghdad "batteries", but I don't think any are beyond reasonable explanation. It's like people want to say innovation is some kind of miracle, but it's not. It's exceptional, not unreasonable.
Know-how gaffes when it isn't used, which often coincides with civilizations in decline. I don't think any historian would dispute that, so I don't really know what you're talking about. What are "we unable to explain?"
>>1180579
>the Giza pyramid
much, much simpler than Roman architecture and same goes for all Greek and Egyptian buildings
>Archimedes’ Death Ray
a simple concept
>the Antikythera mechanism
an inaccurate toy
>mention that the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks were more technologically advanced and had more scientific ingenuity than the populations of Imperial Rome and the Middle-Ages, and you see a modern historian frothing in the mouth.
it's arguable that the Greeks had more "scientific integrity" but the Egyptians absolutely not and neither were as advanced technologically as the Romans or medieval Europe
saying otherwise just betrays your lack of knowledge
>level of technological sophistication that we are unable to explain
complete nonsense
>>1180589
>gaffes
I meant fades.
You know what's funny? We have really simple things we use every day and we have no clue how they work. Bicycles, for example, work on some principle of physics we don't entirely understand, yet we use them all the time. We thought we knew, but we don't.
We don't entirely understand how some medicines work, particularly psych drugs, but doctors prescribe them. 500 years from now, experts will look back and say, "how did they know to use that substance?".
Invention is not always predicated with full concept awareness. Some of what we do is pure pragmatism.
>>1180606
>Bicycles, for example, work on some principle of physics we don't entirely understand, yet we use them all the time. We thought we knew, but we don't.
this is nonsense
>We don't entirely understand how some medicines work, particularly psych drugs
this is true
>>1180606
> Bicycles, for example, work on some principle of physics we don't entirely understand
What we don't understand? Force of friction or the basic mechanics?
>>1180613
Why it stays vertical on two wheels easier when in motion. We thought we had it in the 70s with a sort of gyroscope effect, but that isn't correct. Then we thought it had something to do with the leading edge of the front wheel, and that isn't it, either.
>>1180611
>this is nonsense
lol well, if you can write it on paper, you will win an award.
>>1180590
>much, much simpler than Roman architecture and same goes for all Greek and Egyptian buildings
Of course in terms of architecture it's much simpler than things like the Pantheon , but my point was the question of how did they build it. We still don't know precisely how they build by rolling the stones or dragging them without using screws or forklifts, neither are we able to replicate a pyramids construction with what technology they had at the time.
>a simple concept
Are you really discounting the manipulation of light through mirrors to make a fucking death ray, as a "simple concept", 2000 years ago before modern physics? Assuming even if it was just a simple concept for burning things, if it was pointed at a moving object, Archimedes would have needed to calculate the speed of light and it's intensity traveling to the ship.
>an inaccurate toy
A clockwork mechanism that predicts to specific astrological positions and the future Olympic games, is a toy? Of course it was innacurate since they didn't have at the time advanced in astronomy to count for astrophysical phenomena we do know today. Do you forget that until Galilleo most of the European community believed in geocentrism? And Gallileo was only able to prove the heliocentric model through teh advances in telescopy.
>>1180632
the gyroscopic effect may have been overhyped but we know it's some combination of inertia, gyroscopic effects and rider balance
acting like there is some mystical force we don't understand is silly
>>1180632
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2084/1955
>>1180636
No, I don't think anyone implies it's a mystic force, and you're likely on the right track with inertia, but it can't be expressed. And hey, you're not arguing at me, you're arguing at the physics community. lol
>>1180635
Also the schema of the Antikythera mechanism betrays a level of sophistication in engineering that we are unable to explain with the current sources we have on Ancient Greek science.
>>1180635
>We still don't know precisely how they build
what does it matter?
>neither are we able to replicate a pyramids construction with what technology they had at the time.
yes we can there are numerous plausible theories
>Archimedes would have needed to calculate the speed of light and it's intensity traveling to the ship.
lol no
he would have gotten a lot of mirrors and pointed them at a ship
Archimedes is one of the greatest geniuses of all time no doubt about it and he definitely thought this through the best he could but the underlying idea is still simple
>A clockwork mechanism that predicts to specific astrological positions and the future Olympic games, is a toy?
it is, doubtless some very smart individual made it though
when it comes to architecture, metallurgy, workmanship, productivity, farming technologies, infrastructure, etc. the Greeks and especially Egyptians pale in comparison to the Romans and medieval Europe this is just a fact
and a few cherrypicked examples of some rich genius tinkering doesn't change that
>>1180643
They had autism in the past too...
The shoulders of giants shit is sometimes carried too far. One man can figure a lot out on his own. The only requirement is free time and compulsive obsession
>>1180643
That design is entirely speculative btw. Either way, its just a fancy clock.
>Archimedes would have needed to calculate the speed of light
lol
no
>>1180650
>its just a fancy clock.
In 200 BC, 1500 years before actual clocks. Stop downplaying it
>>1180639
http://www.newstatesman.com/science/2013/08/we-still-don%E2%80%99t-really-know-how-bicycles-work
captcha was click all pictures of bicycles lol
>>1180636
The problem might be being misstated. Here is what can't accurately be explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy_XRVO-jl8
>>1180663
You responded to my academic paper that correctly recognizes that a bicycle stabilizing at certain speeds is a dynamics problem and explains and solves all the math, with a popsci article by a quantum physicist. Alright man, it's a huge mystery and we just don't know.
>>1180688
Is this one better? lol
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/self-stable-bike/
I know, this isn't the /sci chat. I will quit.
