Are There Any Straight Lines In Nature?

[Frostbite]

Actually I'd be curious to know about the surrounding area. If this thing is sticking out 10 meters above kilometers of featureless ocean floor, it'd be interesting. If it had a functional purpose rather than symbolic, I wouldn't expect any symmetry or special proportions or angles. Otherwise I think I'll put that one on hold for now.

 

[King of the Americas]

These MIGHT be...

...'ruins'.

I've seen lots of pictures of ruins, and sometimes it was VERY difficult to see THAT is what I was looking at.

To BE ruins, it would have had to be underwater for LONG time, and it is not dificualt to say that IF it is a ruins sight that it doens't look as good as it used to.

I don't see any stairs going to into a flay wall. They all go to 'platforms' or decks...I guess.

I am affraid I need to see the rest of the coastline to say for certain.

Where's the carved head, what's around it?

I'll say this, I find the 'lack' of giant coatal maps of the lost underwater civilization, suspect.

I mean come on, why AREN'T there guys from Discovery out there right now maping out were the venders used to sell fresh fish ad rice?

On the Graham Hancock site, he compares several sunken statues or structures to those inland.

So why not give us ALL the information, and not just the stuff that looks interesting?

 

[Nucular]

Re: These MIGHT be...

So why not give us ALL the information, and not just the stuff that looks interesting?

I think probably because he doesn't want to pre-empt his book Underworld? It's all about sunken coastline civilisations flooded at the end of the Ice Age; I haven't read it though, so I don't know how much about Yonaguni is in it. I know he went there a fair few times while he was writing the book, though.

 

[Frostbite]

Too bad the whole thing is taken care of by a somewhat questionable independent researcher. The Japanese government should take it from there and give us all sorts of geological data and satellite pictures. This sounds like it's gonna turn out an underwater theme park for tourists.

 

[Psiload]

Re: These MIGHT be...

...'ruins'.

I've seen lots of pictures of ruins, and sometimes it was VERY difficult to see THAT is what I was looking at.

To BE ruins, it would have had to be underwater for LONG time, and it is not dificualt to say that IF it is a ruins sight that it doens't look as good as it used to.

I don't see any stairs going to into a flay wall. They all go to 'platforms' or decks...I guess.

I am affraid I need to see the rest of the coastline to say for certain.

Where's the carved head, what's around it?

I'll say this, I find the 'lack' of giant coatal maps of the lost underwater civilization, suspect.

I mean come on, why AREN'T there guys from Discovery out there right now maping out were the venders used to sell fresh fish ad rice?

On the Graham Hancock site, he compares several sunken statues or structures to those inland.

So why not give us ALL the information, and not just the stuff that looks interesting?

Because Graham Hancock and the Discovery channel are in the entertainment business, not the investigation and research business. They aren't interested in science. They're not trying to answer questions, and solve mysteries... they're only interested in selling books, and getting ratings. Subsequently, they Know what a thorough presentation of the facts will most likely lead to... the same thing a higher resolution look at the "face on Mars" revealed. Nothing is more frightening to a mystery mongerer than the sober truth. Which is why guys like Graham Hancock, and Erich Von Daniken flit from place to place, and mystery to mystery like butterflies, rather than settling on one, and devoting their full attention to investigating the truth of the matter. They're content to get a few compelling details, twist them out of proportion, use them as the basis of a wildly speculative book, and then head to the next enigma. You make a helluva lot better living doing it that way, than digging on your hands and knees for countless years like those silly archeologists.

 

[Frostbite]

Re: Re: These MIGHT be...

Because Graham Hancock and the Discovery channel are in the entertainment business, not the investigation and research business. They aren't interested in science. They're not trying to answer questions, and solve mysteries... they're only interested in selling books, and getting ratings. Subsequently, they Know what a thorough presentation of the facts will most likely lead to... the same thing a higher resolution look at the "face on Mars" revealed. Nothing is more frightening to a mystery mongerer than the sober truth. Which is why guys like Graham Hancock, and Erich Von Daniken flit from place to place, and mystery to mystery like butterflies, rather than settling on one, and devoting their full attention to investigating the truth of the matter. They're content to get a few compelling details, twist them out of proportion, use them as the basis of a wildly speculative book, and then head to the next enigma. You make a helluva lot better living doing it that way, than digging on your hands and knees for countless years like those silly archeologists.

That is a valid point. Independent researchers don't earn salaries, they earn parts of their books sales. They have to earn a living and finance their next trip around the world and not go back to whatever office clerk job they had before. For that reason, MOST of what they write should be taken with a grain of salt. Yet it's still worth DEBATING. Dismissing everythig they say altogether is, in my opinion, a mistake. I still believe there are genuine mysteries which are worth looking into. I do believe there's a correlation and a possibility of a lost civilization (or many lost civilizations in fact), based on weird evidence the "silly archeologists" conveniently ignore or won't dare deal with because their career could get flushed down the toilet. Why would people bother debate these issues if there was convincing evidence? The simple fact is, there are things conventional knowledge does not know, and they're worth debating and researching.

 

[Checkmite]

Here's the thing though. No bodies have ever been found in the Great Pyramids (the Khufu and Chephren ones). The Egyptians could very well have adopted these two structures as their own and emulated them the best they could at other spots along the Nile river. The pyramids were hermetically sealed from time immemorial until they were opened by arabs in the 9th century (I'll have to double-check on that, it's been years since I've read about it heh).

The Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan does indeed have a staircase and an altar on top. Its application was indeed different. However, since nobody lived there when the Spanish arrived, there is no documentation about its origins or how it was built. Its base measurements are the same as the Great Pyramid, which leads me to believe that whoever built the Pyramid of the Sun was somewhat inspired by the same knowledge as whoever built the Giza Pyramid.

In other words, I don't think the same person built both structures (chances indeed are both were built thousands of years apart), but I believe they both had the same cultural sources. Both pyramids measure 230x230 meters at their base and have similar mathematical symbolism encoded in their very measurements (stuff about pi that I forget right now but I encourage you to check it out yourself), so I think it would be at the very least foolish to dismiss that as coincidence. I do not know the measurements of the Yonaguni and Montevecchio pyramids though, I'd be curious to know them.

I'll get to this later tonight.

 

[Frostbite]

*writes his last will and testament*

 

[Checkmite]

All right, sorry - Sunday night. (I'm starting to feel like Paul Bethke!)

I apologize, but something drastic came up. I promise a lengthy and in-depth post to make up for any inconvenience. In fact, if it's long enough I'll just start another thread.

Again, sorry for the delay. I like letting my opponents sweat...

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: '...In Nature'...?

Alfie,

Seems the thread's been hijacked by pyramids (not complaining though - I love subtexts and tangents in threads - but someone really interested in discussing this topic may miss out because of the thread title)

However, to keep the main point of this thread - now almost a subtext - could I reply to the threads initiator......

I guess what I mean by 'nature' is something that has formed, grown, into something with a straight line or edge to it. We are formed naturally, yes but our products are made by us therefore we can make whatever shape we like. Your ruler is not a naturally formed object. A beaver would never build a dam with perfectly straight lines, but his dam is not a naturally occuring object.

By this definition, everything produced by physical processes and by plants would be regarded as "natural". We are therefore excluding anything/everything produced by animals. Is that right? (Not criticising, just asking)

Light coming from a source, eg the sun, I would have thought travels three dimensionally---in other words, all directions at once not a straight line.

Or does it travel in straight lines in all directions?
On another level, however, no beam of light can be completely shielded from the effects of gravity although, of course, the effect would be vanishingly small in many instances.
And we also have the possibility of curved 4D space.

The spider web was a good choice but I wonder what it looks like under a microscope.

Then there are no straight lines in nature.

Put any apparently straight line under a powerful enough microscope and that straight line will disappear - unless you can make molecules line up in a straight line. Even then, what about the bits between the molecules - all we really have is a series of points lined up in a straight line not an actual straight line.

The horizon is definitely not a straight line as the Earth has a curved surface and unless you have a perfectly occuring flat landscape or sea surface, the line of the horizon is not going to look flat.

I think you have that one covered, Alfie.

The photos of the underwater city had to be man made, yes?

Even if not, it would not survive being put under the microscope.

As for the fracturing basalt, I suspect if we took a closer look, that the edges of the fractures would be rather rough and uneven looking. Therefore before the basalt fractured, it didn't have any straight edges or lines in it.

Yes, it all depends on your level of abstraction doesn't it?

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Frostbite]

All right, sorry - Sunday night. (I'm starting to feel like Paul Bethke!)

I apologize, but something drastic came up. I promise a lengthy and in-depth post to make up for any inconvenience. In fact, if it's long enough I'll just start another thread.

Again, sorry for the delay. I like letting my opponents sweat...

Actually, I already had a 6 pages long debate on this very board a couple months ago about the pyramids and alternative theories concerning them and other old structures. I don't think I have the motivation to go through that again.

 

[King of the Americas]

LOOK before you leap....

...we aren't talking about pryamid, but rather whether or not the sunken city IS in fact a sunken city, or just another example of straight lines in nature...

I originally made the point that everything being connected, WE are supposed to be 'of nature', so why shouldn't our products be considered 'natural'?

I think a spider's web is a perfect example of 'straight lines in nature', but it was already discounted that animal's creations/products are not natural.

I am not sure what direction this thread is supposed to be taking...

 

[Always Free]

Re: LOOK before you leap....

...we aren't talking about pryamid, but rather whether or not the sunken city IS in fact a sunken city, or just another example of straight lines in nature...

I originally made the point that everything being connected, WE are supposed to be 'of nature', so why shouldn't our products be considered 'natural'?

I think a spider's web is a perfect example of 'straight lines in nature', but it was already discounted that animal's creations/products are not natural.

I am not sure what direction this thread is supposed to be taking...

I would say that because I'm asking the question for my benefit. If You believe that a beavers dam or a ruler is a naturally occuring thing because us naturally occuring beings created it, that's fine. But it's not my idea of a naturally occuring straight line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose I'm more thinking of a straight line as seen with the eye from arms length--shall I say. If you look at everything under a high powered microscope then nothing will look straight--I'm assuming. So therefore the spiders web, the strand of hair, even the veins in a plants leaf could be seen as naturally straight. The
fracturing basalt is the result of a force breaking the rock so I wouldn't see it as naturally occuring, or maybe I should say naturally forming bit of rock with straight edges as the edges occured when the rock was fractured.

But anyhow, there haven't been too many examples of straight lines given here. I have enjoyed the off topic discussions though. Very interesting.

 

[King of the Americas]

Well...

...I think, even under a microscope, a spider's web would LOOk pretty straight...



And since 'I' find gravity to be a natural thing, I find that those basalt structures to also be evidence of straight lines in nature.

Moreover, what about quartz crytals!?

Call me crazy, but I see LOTS of straight lines in nature

 

[garys_2k]

The concept of "straight" is a mathematical one made up by people. It also happens that some very natural phenomena do approximate that definition.

Likewise "round." One could ask "Does nature make anything really circular?" I would refer to pond ripples.

 

[DrMatt]

Here's a few straight lines:

"Why did the chicken cross the road?"

"Two peanuts walk into a bar."

"My mother-in-law is so fat!"

Are you trying to tell all these nice people out there that those lines are NATURAL????

 

[DrMatt]

The concept of "straight" is a mathematical one made up by people. It also happens that some very natural phenomena do approximate that definition.

Likewise "round." One could ask "Does nature make anything really circular?" I would refer to pond ripples.

The notion of circularity involves the measurement of distance. The distance and time lag between two events depends on the observer, though the two may be combined to yeild a constant which is independent of the observer (c.f. relativity).

 

[garys_2k]

The notion of circularity involves the measurement of distance. The distance and time lag between two events depends on the observer, though the two may be combined to yeild a constant which is independent of the observer (c.f. relativity).

True. I guess the point I failed to make is that the idea of "straight" is an arbitrary one we invented. Ditto "round" or "square" or any such geometric construct.

If nature happens to supply something that approximates that definition it is a non-event. It may be interesting to look for such approximations (understanding that at some level we will see that if breaks down), but there is nothing inherently strange (or not strange) about such a match.

Ahhh! I stilll don't think I got it across. Never mind...

 

[tbrookin]

Here's a link to a cool example of nature making circles:
Patterns from Nowhere
I think the main interest in it is that the first time people see the pictures, they think, "this stuff HAS to be man-made". At least, that was my reaction. But the natural explanation is pretty good. It just goes to show that it's hard to make generalizations about what cannot be produced in nature.

 

[King of the Americas]

THAT...

...is 'one' interesting picture, with a lengthy 'scientific theory' to describe it.

Why just the one picture? How about a whole series of pictures of the entire sight from all sides and above?

More facts, less speculation, THEN I'll decide what this is or isn't.