Are There Any Straight Lines In Nature?

[Soapy Sam]

Do I hear the grunt of a shifting paradigm?


On the underwater "ruins" and basalts.

Many rocks, whether sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic, have natural cooling joints or other planes of weakness. Brittle fracture tends to produce sharp surfaces, frequently at 45 degrees to the compressive stress. Add some moss and gunk and these can look very artificial, precisely because we think angular "structures"do.

Cooling joints in basalt are usually curved, in point of fact. To see similar structures in miniature, examine dried clay in any dried up puddle. Polygonal cracks are the rule, rather than exceptional. In a thick lava flow, the outer surfaces cool first and the cracks propagate through the flow. They don't always meet, either.

Without going to the underwater site, who knows? The fact remains that linear, planar or pseudo-geometric structure in rock is not in itself evidence of human activity. Tools, cigarette butts etc., graffiti- that's what to look for.

And people selling sausage. In a bun.

 

[King of the Americas]

Original summations...

...upon this finding 'differs', as to what you usually believe in.

'I' see something like this (having seen some interesting natual rock fractures), and say "Wow, now that is interesting. I wonder what could have possibly cause THAT besides the hand of man?"

Those things LOOK man made, to me. Moreover, I have first hand accounts that have actually dove the sight, who claim that they found huge carved items, post holes, and a pyramid with the same sized base as the Sun Pryamid in Central America and the Great Pyramid in Egypt. All, that 'I' need is to visit the sight, to see for myself these previous conclusions, to BELIEVE that this truly IS what it has been preceived to be.

Then you have the scientific skeptic, who draws the opposite conclusion, that these things ARE NOT man made, unless absolute proof can be provided to suggest otherwise.

I can't say that these things ARE man made, for certain. And I think those that would say that the definately aren't, are making an irresponsible conclusion.

 

[Luke T.]

Luke T: There are only 5 straight lines in Nature.

Joshua Korosi: I count 6.

xouper
Hmmm. I count 7. Could we be seeing different fonts?

I used the same criteria as BillyJoe when he saw 14 in NATURE.

 

[HarryKeogh]

are there any perfectly straight lines in nature?
or is a perfectly straight line only possible in theory?
i would think that between any two points on a line, that line would waver a little if taken to a certain degree of precision

just curious, i have no idea what the answer is.

 

[Frostbite]

Re: Original summations...

...upon this finding 'differs', as to what you usually believe in.

'I' see something like this (having seen some interesting natual rock fractures), and say "Wow, now that is interesting. I wonder what could have possibly cause THAT besides the hand of man?"

Those things LOOK man made, to me. Moreover, I have first hand accounts that have actually dove the sight, who claim that they found huge carved items, post holes, and a pyramid with the same sized base as the Sun Pryamid in Central America and the Great Pyramid in Egypt. All, that 'I' need is to visit the sight, to see for myself these previous conclusions, to BELIEVE that this truly IS what it has been preceived to be.

Then you have the scientific skeptic, who draws the opposite conclusion, that these things ARE NOT man made, unless absolute proof can be provided to suggest otherwise.

I can't say that these things ARE man made, for certain. And I think those that would say that the definately aren't, are making an irresponsible conclusion.

Extremely interesting. I don't think we can afford to dismiss these as natural, and more effort should be made to figure them out. The legends of Lemuria or Mu or whatever talk about a civilization that existed in the Pacific ocean. I don't think it's that far-fetched really, just because history books don't know about it. After all, we did discover the "mythical" city of Troy and a sunken Atlantis-type island in the Mediterranean. Back to a time when the poles were much thicker and probably extended closer to the equator, isn't it quite possible that ocean levels were much lower and the water colder, more compressed? The ocean area around the Yonaguni "structures" isn't very deep, between 25 and 100 feet. And if what you say about the pyramid being the same size as the Teotihuacan and Giza ones (also check out the Montevecchio mounts in Italy, which are around the same height too!) then there could be a very meaningful correlation.

 

[Nucular]

Yonaguni is one of Graham Hancock's pet subjects at present. He's said some barmy stuff in the past, but also some not-so-barmy stuff. His current thing about shoreline civilisations that would have been lost in the flooding at the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago is pretty interesting. He thinks this site is one of them.

Edited to make the link more specific

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Original summations...

......
After all, we did discover the "mythical" city of Troy and a sunken Atlantis-type island in the Mediterranean. ...............

Yes we did, but the sites included artifacts, such as pottery and tools, that suggested human habitation....

 

[King of the Americas]

To Frostbite:

This 'pryamid theme' was dismissed by skeptics, in their arguements by saying that the ones on Egypt and Central America are 'different'. The ignore the 'equal base argument' between the Pyramid of the Sun and the Great Pyramid, outright and say it is simply a coicidence.

This now THIRD pyramid of an equal base, may force the hand of history writers yet again.

I think that the Scientific Community is a relatively closed community of understanding and acceptance. For a LONG time, they have worked to overturn 'common myth, religious historical texts, and folklore' as works of complete fiction. And yet, when researches DO use these works as tools or maps, they often find that there WAS 'some truth' to be deciphered therein.

it is important, if not absolutely neccessary that we 'accept' and desciminate the fact that civilization was once threatened on this planet, so that we might better prepair for a day when it happens to us.

I can think of no greater goal than the preservation of our civilization.

And I don't see how ignoring historical information 'helps' us at all.

 

[hgc]

KOA,

I'd like to address a few of your points. First, I agree completely that the preservation (or rather, advancement) of our civilization is the greatest goal.

... the Scientific Community is a relatively closed community of understanding and acceptance.

Science, done properly, is bounded by a set of rules and practices that help to distinguish reality from fantasy, objectivity from subjectivity. Acceptance of any passing fancy is a detriment to understanding of reality.

For a LONG time, they have worked to overturn 'common myth, religious historical texts, and folklore' as works of complete fiction.

I don't think of this as the goal of science, merely the result of science. Remember, those texts are often the best understanding of reality at the time they were produced (notwithstanding some historical texts were intended as fiction and allegory even at the time they were written), and subsequent study has given us a better picture. This is known as progress, and I consider it the advancement of our civilization.

And yet, when researches DO use these works as tools or maps, they often find that there WAS 'some truth' to be deciphered therein.

I'd like to know some specific examples. Sure, historians find out from ancient texts and other memes a lot about how our ancestors viewed reality. But we've learned a lot since then, and much of that directly contradicts what the ancients thought. I don't have a problem with that. I really do believe in progress.

 

[King of the Americas]

As mentioned before...

...The 'Mythical' City of Troy.

It was 'accepted' in the Scientific Community that those hunting for it, were on no less than a wild goose chase.

The city didn't exist, because some guy wrote about it.

HAD THEY CONTINUED, with this line of reasoning, they'd have never 'found' anything.

I am aware of Science's Rules, and I DO think that those guidelines have led us to progress. However, there is a living body of people, and organizations that decide what is 'known'. And on mor ethan one occasion they have dismissed historical texts alltogether, because they find error in specific examples.

I think THAT is a bad idea.

As far as 'I' am concerned, historical texts, religious or not, ARE something 'I' would use, in search of historical fact.

Indeed, had the Legend of Troy remained fiction to everyone, it would have likely never been found. And so it will be with Atlantis, Lemuria, and any other lost city we hear about through common lore.

 

[Frostbite]

I second KOA.

I've been called a pyramidiot for years for being interested in the possibilities that some of the world's oldest monuments could in fact be prehistoric. How could it even be possible that our history books cover everything from the dawn of mankind? And, is it a paranoid assumption that religion could've been responsible for suppressing evidence and telling us these monuments were in fact built by whoever they say they were? I don't think it's too far-fetched. Catholics have been known for burning books and entire libraries.

 

[King of the Americas]

Here HERE...

*KNOCK*KNOCK*KNOCK*KNOCK*KNOCK*KNOCK*

 

[hgc]

I second KOA.

I've been called a pyramidiot for years for being interested in the possibilities that some of the world's oldest monuments could in fact be prehistoric. How could it even be possible that our history books cover everything from the dawn of mankind? And, is it a paranoid assumption that religion could've been responsible for suppressing evidence and telling us these monuments were in fact built by whoever they say they were? I don't think it's too far-fetched. Catholics have been known for burning books and entire libraries.

Almost all quite reasonable. I would quibble with "oldest monuments could in fact be preshistoric," since to me a human-built monument is what I'd consider a historical record (it doesn't have to be text to be history). Now, if your saying 'world's oldest monuments' could mean 'built by someone other than human,' show me some reason to consider this. Otherwise I'll stick to the well established pattern that humans seem to have built everything that's not natural.

 

[Checkmite]

I do not fault KOA for interpreting the photos as underwater artficial structures. The photos are quite suggestive, after all. And given the volcanic instability of that area of the Ring of Fire, it's not a stretch that a couple thousand years ago, a city could have been "Krakatoa'd" to the bottom of the ocean.

Having said that, I contest the notion that a city of this size could've existed 12,000 years ago, and was abandoned due to flooding caused by the melting of the last glaciation. It's simply too thin. Whatever "civilization" built this alleged city has left absolutely no other traces of itself. After this city "sank" (so to speak), why didn't its inhabitants simply build another, further away from the shoreline? Why did the descendants of this civilization suddenly revert back to the stone age, forgetting how to build such edifices?

 

[Frostbite]

Almost all quite reasonable. I would quibble with "oldest monuments could in fact be preshistoric," since to me a human-built monument is what I'd consider a historical record (it doesn't have to be text to be history). Now, if your saying 'world's oldest monuments' could mean 'built by someone other than human,' show me some reason to consider this. Otherwise I'll stick to the well established pattern that humans seem to have built everything that's not natural.

Heh, yeah I'm not talking about space aliens or anything. I think they were all manmade, just by different civilizations, and much older than we think we know. A monument is indeed a historical record, unless it is badly interpreted.

 

[King of the Americas]

Joshua Korosi:

I think the make up of a highly advanced technology is what makes it so breakable.

Take US for example, most of us have cars, but couldn't build one. If our infrastucture were to suffer a drastic collapse, it would only be a matter of time before we were back on hourseback.

Moreover, I think there ARE several examples similar looking buildings further inland.

---

To hgc:

I think that the issue at hand, is whether or not there IS or WAS such thing as 'pre-historic' highly advanced civilization.

 

[Frostbite]

I do not fault KOA for interpreting the photos as underwater artficial structures. The photos are quite suggestive, after all. And given the volcanic instability of that area of the Ring of Fire, it's not a stretch that a couple thousand years ago, a city could have been "Krakatoa'd" to the bottom of the ocean.

Having said that, I contest the notion that a city of this size could've existed 12,000 years ago, and was abandoned due to flooding caused by the melting of the last glaciation. It's simply too thin. Whatever "civilization" built this alleged city has left absolutely no other traces of itself. After this city "sank" (so to speak), why didn't its inhabitants simply build another, further away from the shoreline? Why did the descendants of this civilization suddenly revert back to the stone age, forgetting how to build such edifices?

Well, mythologies from all over the world speak of a flood, then of its survivors sailing the seas and settling to other parts of the world. IF the pyramids at Giza, Montevecchio, Yonaguni (if there even is a pyramid there, I haven't seen it) and Teotihuacan were in fact built by the same people or their descendents, it would explain why these pyramids have similar sizes, measurements and proportions. It would also explain a couple anomalies and anachronisms some alternative researchers have been writing books about. It's an elegant theory which doesn't shatter anything really.

 

[xouper]

Whodini: Sure, although I honestly don't know if you are truly curious, or if you are "testing" me to be extremely annoying.

Perhaps both.

[edited to add - I need to make a tongue smiley that resembles my avatar.]

To be specific, I do not know the extent of your knowledge of mathematics and I was curious what you meant when you said, "locally linear for in any given interval". But rather than ask that, I felt that an example would be a more concise and precise answer to what you meant. From your example, I now know you were playing fast and loose with the phrase "locally linear for in any given interval."

f(x) = x^2. Basically, any function f, where you can "zoom in" to the point (a,f(a)), and it will have slope f'(a).

You are correct about the slope, obviously, but your initial comment was for ANY given interval, and I can think of lots of intervals on that curve that are not even remotely close to appearing linear, for example the interval <nobr>x=[-1,1].</nobr>

Secondly, I assume you know that slope (first derivative) is not synomymous with curvature (reciprocal of radius). Nowhere on that function is the curvature equal to zero, therefore there is no interval that is locally linear.

Initially I wondered if you might offer examples of functions that have inflection points, such as <nobr>f(x) = x^3</nobr> where the curvature is zero at an inflection point. However, a single point is hardly a satisfying example of linearity.

Removing my pedant's hat for a moment, I gather the point you were trying to make is that if you zoom in on any sufficiently small interval of a continuously differentiable curve, it will seem to be linear. Just as an ocean horizon will seem to be a straight line. I would agree with your point, as long as we aren't claiming it actually IS linear.

 

[Guest]

xouper,

", I gather the point you were trying to make is that if you zoom in on any sufficiently small interval of a continuously differentiable curve, it will seem to be linear."

Exactly.

"I would agree with your point, as long as we aren't claiming it actually IS linear."

For all practical purposes, it is linear. If we only view the zoomed in part and we are unaware of the larger part of which is it from, it is linear. In mathematics, of course we know that we are zoomed in an a part of x^2. With the universe, we don't have the luxury of knowing a similar type of thing I don't believe.

-Who

 

[xouper]

Luke T: I used the same criteria as BillyJoe when he saw 14 in NATURE.

OK, here's what I see (refer to attached image).

Three straight lines in N.
The horizontal lines in t and e.
The vertical lines in u and r.
Which totals seven.

The vertical lines in a an t don't count since they are part of a longer stroke which is not straight over the whole stroke. Is my criteria different than yours? Inquiring (bored) minds wanna know.