Do you believe in the existence of highly advanced ancient Earth civilization before?

[Seret]

That really is debatable.

What you're describing is how satellite nav is useful. You're not describing how it's essential. If all our satellites fell from the sky tomorrow we'd adapt and continue advancing.

Satnav is extremely useful, but we were pretty advanced before we had it, and only a subset of tasks would be hampered by it's absence going forward.

[DJEN]

Is there a justification for this belief?

It is mere belief, with no evidence.

[vger]

Link? I highly doubt such a navigation system would be accurate to within a few meters (down to centimetres depending on the sensitivity of your equipment), and be universally accessible around the world (with some very slight annoyances at the poles).

Yeah, I wish. The only reason I know this even existed is because I snagged a device (nobody cared about it, I asked) from one of my old temp jobs. They specialized in gas resources, so I'm guessing this was used for surveying. Basically looked like a big box (similar to a retro army radio) with a quartz screen and a huge retractable antenna. By the time I got around to playing with it, the old grid system was offline.

I can't recall though if this system was international, or just limited to the USA. I'll have to see if I can find where I stashed the darned thing now. When I had it in my hand, I was able to find info about the 'grid' on Wikipedia, but that was a couple years ago. My memory is betraying me now.

Edited June 4, 2014 by vger

[Nibb31]

Yeah, I wish. The only reason I know this even existed is because I snagged a device (nobody cared about it, I asked) from one of my old temp jobs. They specialized in gas resources, so I'm guessing this was used for surveying. Basically looked like a big box (similar to a retro army radio) with a quartz screen and a huge retractable antenna. By the time I got around to playing with it, the old grid system was offline.

I can't recall though if this system was international, or just limited to the USA. I'll have to see if I can find where I stashed the darned thing now. When I had it in my hand, I was able to find info about the 'grid' on Wikipedia, but that was a couple years ago. My memory is betraying me now.

You might be referring to Omega:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_%28navigation_system%29

[Seret]

You might be referring to Omega:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_%28navigation_system%29

There's also a lot of RF navigational infrastructure still used by aircraft (VORTACs, etc).

[vger]

You might be referring to Omega: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_%28navigation_system%29

Yep, that's it. Thanks!

[phoenix_ca]

You might be referring to Omega:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_%28navigation_system%29

Quick scan of that page reads that the accuracy of Omega was around 1-4 km. That's...quite paltry in comparison to the accuracy achieved by GPS using a high-quality receiver.

There's also a lot of RF navigational infrastructure still used by aircraft (VORTACs, etc).

True enough, though GPS has supplanted a lot of it in civil aviation. Used to be that planes would use those transmitters to stay in certain flight paths so as to not run into each other. Now its far more common to just fly GPS direct and use VOR stations for management in an airport's local airspace.

Besides, unless I'm mistaken, VOR can't give you positional data on your aircraft, only rough directional data on what bearing the transmitter is. Certainly not accurate enough (if it could; I suppose you could try to triangulate your position from two or three stations) for use in our (somewhat frighteningly) congested airspace.

[ZetaX]

Uhhhh, no. Go back, read the posts.

I had read the posts. Explain to me how GPS being based on relativity implies that we can't substitute that with radio towers.

[Seret]

Now its far more common to just fly GPS direct and use VOR stations for management in an airport's local airspace.

Strictly speaking they use inertial with periodic updates from GPS.

You do get some folks flying light aircraft straight off GPS under VFR. I've seen cropdusters with rows of lights on the engine cowl giving the pilot steering queues. They just fly around the perimeter of the field, plug in swath width and the GPS system does all the rest. Impressive stuff.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Seret

[phoenix_ca]

I had read the posts. Explain to me how GPS being based on relativity implies that we can't substitute that with radio towers.

Oh dear. Okay, I'll take you through it step-by-step. First, Dodgey says this:

True they don't have to be space faring but it makes sense. Think about our GPS system. Our communication system.

See, right there? GPS system.

Then NASAFanboy, quoting the above from Dodgey, says:

Who said they have to be in space?

Who said they would span the globe?

Large networks of radio towers and underground cables can do the job too.

Then I say, responding specifically to the last line, concluding that NASAFanboy is suggesting that GPS can be done with merely radio towers and underground cables, say this:

GPS exists because we understand relativity and have satellites, period. You can't replace that with radio towers and underground cables.

So first off, that's not a non sequitur as you suggested. What I said indeed does follow from those posts before.

Specifically in reference to the accuracy of GPS, without general relativity we could not turn the different timings of the signals coming from three satellites into accurate positional data. If you attempted to do so, you would inevitably get erroneous results because you wouldn't be taking into account the slight variance in the passage of time between your frame of reference and those of the satellites.

Some reading: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Underground cables are out for the rather obvious reason that they do not create a signal, so you have nothing with which to triangulate your position. Radio towers are, by their nature, limited in range because they are on earth. At the very least they are bound by the necessity to create a taller tower the more range you require. To replace the GPS system with radio towers would require, for one, exceptionally accurate receivers and a vast network of towers, if your goal is to cover the globe. We're talking build-islands-in-the-ocean kind of vast. So perhaps it isn't entirely impossible, but again, I seriously doubt that you would get anywhere close to the same accuracy, to say nothing of the complexity of such a network and the mess it would leave behind had it been created by some sort of advanced civilization. O.o

And, after all the work, you still wouldn't get the same accuracy without nanosecond precision. Find me some super-advanced civilization that did this on Earth and I'll eat my hat.

Strictly speaking they use inertial with periodic updates from GPS.

Ah true enough. Inertial navigation systems are annoyingly bad without those updates though, with compounding errors as they move that eventually add-up to them being useless if not corrected. Handy for if/when you lose sight of the GPS sats though.

Edited June 4, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Seret]

Inertial navigation systems are annoyingly bad without those updates though, with compounding errors as they move that eventually add-up to them being useless if not corrected. Handy for if/when you lose sight of the GPS sats though.

They're actually a bit more useful than that. They provide a lot more data than GPS (such as the aircraft's attitude and exact velocity) and it's continuous rather than discrete, so can generate things like HUD symbology. But yes, dead reckoning does need a kick in the pants periodically to stay in communion with reality.

[Kryten]

phoenix_ca, would you seriously make the claim that we didn't have an 'advanced civilisation' before the activation of the GPS network? If not, how is any of this relevant to the thread?

[Rakaydos]

When pesants of the middle ages toiled in the shadows of the roman aquiducts, there was ample evidence of an advanced prior civilization.

We passed that point ages ago.

[Dodgey]

While underground cables have the advantage with bandwidth, the cost and versatility doesn't even come close to what satellites can do. Telegraph doesn't even compare to the complexity and cost of a modern fiber optic system.

Kryten, the point is about space travel. If there was an advanced civilisation why aren't any of their satellites in orbit. Someone asked why they needed them, we said for GPS and communication. Someone argued that we didn't need satellites for GPS and communication. That's what phoenix_ca was refuting.

May I remind you all that we haven't even mentioned military applications or weather predictions. As well as the curiosity that the prevalent in humanity.

[rtxoff]

Also only because we pollute every space we conquer does not mean other's do the same. There could have been a civilization that took all their trash with them, now argue that.

Only beacause we are the cancer of this world does not mean everybody has to be.

[Seret]

If there was an advanced civilisation why aren't any of their satellites in orbit.

Was mid-20th century civilisation not "advanced"?

[Justin Kerbice]

@gpisic: I agree with you.

And to answer the original question: yes I believe one, or more, civilization(s) have existed before and may be even still very alive (the one we called "extraterrestrial" or a part of them).

1st: simple maths, oldest human being like remains have been dated back to 4.5 millions years old, it's quite old, considering "our" current civilization could be back dated to cave-men (a few 100 000 years ONLY). It's not so crazy to believe some human beings have already evolve long time ago (even after 1 million years), in only 100000 years, they could reach some technologies, then for one reason or another, they "died", so in more than 3 millions years under various climates changes, geological and cosmic events and natural erosion, many or all of theirs creations and legacy have disappeared for good.

2nd: various testimonies from a remote past still exists but they can't be strictly dated (C-14 dating can only be use of organisms and only for those younger than ~ 50 000 years, other methods are also not precise), and many of them shows very strange and unexplained design and purpose like Central and South America's pyramids and others. Even more strange is the fact no known technologies today can either be use to built such kind of constructions !

(except the undisclosed method use by the builder of Coral Castle, Edward Leedskalnin).

Also, we tend to forgot how our civilization has evolve due to some critical choices "made" during its history, think about it: fire, language, gun powder, wheels, religion, money and stupidity in random order , have forged all civilization. Modern trains and cars width have been set according to the old roman's pavestone road width made for horse powered chariot ! And basically: fire + powder + some geometry and physics lead to current rocket science.

What if the powder has never been invented ? Or not use the same way ?

I also watch the show (mysterious cities of gold) long ago and it looks like it is based upon old accounts from indian epic Mahâbhârata which also talk about things some people have interpreted to be nuclear weapons.

For interested people, I recommend Ancient Aliens, some conclusions are a bit too easy and too fast, but facts can't be denied (ancient texts and buildings for example).

[magnemoe]

Was mid-20th century civilisation not "advanced"?

Problem with advanced civilization is that you can put the bar wherever you want, I put it as faster than light travel and say no.

Industrial civilization is easier to define, and its over 150 year old.

Now an previous industrial civilization has more problems than traces like waste or empty mines, its the knowledge, very unlikely that people will forget useful things like guns or steam engines, this hits simpler stuff like iron, writing or the wheel, they got copied fast people also trade a lot so hard to be too isolated.

For some civilization before humans, something local might not be found, however this also require that we don't find traces of the species leading up the the intelligent one, this too is very unlikely.

[Moon Goddess]

How on earth does this not fall into the banned conspericy theory talk... this is the most rediculous thing I've seen posted here.

Occam's Razor, look it up.

You're suggesting the ancient civilization and expecting people to accept it if they can't prove it didn't exist, the world and science don't work that way.

You have the outlandish claim proof it

[rtxoff]

No matter how unlikely something is it should be considered to be the truth because unlikely is not impossible. As long as someone can't proof something right or wrong every theory is valid.

To win in the lottery is very unlikely yet there is an winner almost every week.

To call someone advanced is not a matter of putting a bar somewhere. It is more a matter of perspective. For some native tribe our civilization could be something very uncivilized because we do not live in harmony with the nature. For them our efforts could mean nothing then destruction. Also we could learn stuff from them (to live in harmony with nature).

We think of our selfes that we are soooo civilized still countries have wars and people die.

Great great Civilization.

You see, just a matter of perspective.

[shynung]

There is a difference between hypotheses that is outright wrong, and ones that, while extremely unlikely, cannot be proven wrong. This discussion of ancient advanced civilizations are the latter.

I'll give you a different example: There may be aliens on Mars. The possibility is still there. However, recent discoveries by several spacecrafts have observed that there are no signs that life has developed there. Would you, among all this facts, confidently claim that there are living aliens on Mars, on the sole basis of the very-unlikely chance that there actually are?

[Nibb31]

No matter how unlikely something is it should be considered to be the truth because unlikely is not impossible. As long as someone can't proof something right or wrong every theory is valid.

No, it should be considered speculation. To be considered valid, a hypothesis needs evidence.

I can speculate that there are pink unicorns flying around in teapots on Pluto. I have zero evidence, it is unlikely, but it is not impossible.

However, nobody will accept to take my theory into consideration, and rightly so, because it is mere speculation. Just like your ancient civilization.

[Dkmdlb]

Close this thread pls.

[rtxoff]

No, it should be considered speculation. To be considered valid, a hypothesis needs evidence.

I can speculate that there are pink unicorns flying around in teapots on Pluto. I have zero evidence, it is unlikely, but it is not impossible.

However, nobody will accept to take my theory into consideration, and rightly so, because it is mere speculation. Just like your ancient civilization.

I do not know to which speculation you are referring to. Pyramids, the monuments in the Peru highland, the gigantic heads in the easter islands and many more are hard evidence. You want to tell me now they are not relevant or what?

And you want to tell me that we perfectly know how all this was build by some cave people with stone tools? Please do not ridicule yourself.

The only difference in my hypothesis from the established theory is that i claim that these buildings where built much earlier and for a different purpose yet you say my speculation is the same as believing in pink unicorns?

[shynung]

Your hypothesis revolves around the idea of why and how these buildings were built. The existence and composition of said buildings does not provide enough evidence to support said hypothesis.