# Ancient Science (Babylonian period and prior)

## Recommended Posts

Quote

I don't subscribe to modern science.  Here's why: That genuine science began as a branch of ancient philosophy.  Modern science disowns it's ancestry for the sake of modern commercial interests, primarily institutions descending from mass manufactures.

So this thread concerns the science I subscribe to, that being ancient science.  That being said, I noticed today in my natural observations, some moss growing along the railroad as I was doing my daily winter rounds for next year's crop.

And I remembered how moss will grow without soil and actually manufacture it.  I remembered how vivid green it grows even sometimes on manmade concrete.  I remembered that modern science objects, saying that the moss utilizes a minimal amount of soil in such circumstances.

But I discovered some moss a few weeks ago growing on rock projecting laterally where soil could not have been.  And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?

• Replies 79
• Created

#### Popular Posts

He said on a computer plugged into the internet... 🙄 What happened, you run out of stones?

The fact is, science that is authentic is rooted in a love (brotherly) of something, that being wisdom; which isn't exhibited here.  Philosophy is the parent. https://www.google.com/search?q=word

Please proceed then.  So far you have said you don't subscribe to science, we have discussed moss growth and you have hinted ancient Babylon is somehow significant.  I don't know what point you are tr

#### Posted Images

Yes, moss is a major contributor to soil formation where there is no soil.

How does that contradict the fact that moss grows on rock, with no soil? That's what it does, and you said it.

And more importantly, what does that have to do with the Babylonians?

If you don't subscribe to modern science, my suggestion is: Don't use electricity, ok? Use Babylonian science only.

##### Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I don't subscribe to modern science.  Here's why: That genuine science began as a branch of ancient philosophy.  Modern science disowns it's ancestry for the sake of modern commercial interests, primarily institutions descending from mass manufactures.

And you have evidence that modern science has not only been infiltrated by commercial interests, but in a way that invalidates science? Otherwise, why does it matter that there are commercial applications of science?

What’s the pathway for flawed science resulting in a product that works?

##### Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yes, moss is a major contributor to soil formation where there is no soil.

How does that contradict the fact that moss grows on rock, with no soil? That's what it does, and you said it.

And more importantly, what does that have to do with the Babylonians?

If you don't subscribe to modern science, my suggestion is: Don't use electricity, ok? Use Babylonian science only.

The thread was worded and intended as a question.  It wasn't stated as something contradicting something something else.

As far as how the moss question relates to the topic, it's introductory to the topic.

And as for your kind suggestion, that's my intent.

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

And you have evidence that modern science has not only been infiltrated by commercial interests, but in a way that invalidates science? Otherwise, why does it matter that there are commercial applications of science?

What’s the pathway for flawed science resulting in a product that works?

What other service to mankind does modern science make?

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Was other service to mankind does modern science make?

I’ll use GPS as an example, since I work in support of it with no commercial interest in the system.

We could use computers and the internet as commercial products based on modern science that work, and you nonetheless use.

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’ll use GPS as an example, since I work in support of it with no commercial interest in the system.

We could use computers and the internet as commercial products based on modern science that work, and you nonetheless use.

Companies produce an end product directly or indirectly.  What is it?  Your customers at the end of the service line must produce something.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It wasn't stated as something contradicting something something else.

Ok. Let's see:

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I remembered how moss will grow without soil and actually manufacture it.

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

But I discovered some moss a few weeks ago growing on rock projecting laterally where soil could not have been.

(my emphasis)

What's the surprise then?

So to you it's perfectly normal to say: "I'm Chinese, but I speak Chinese".

I would rather say: "moss will grow without soil, and indeed I discovered moss growing on rock".

Unless the word "but" means something completely obscure to me.

And I still haven't got the faintest idea what the Babylonians have to do with all this.

18 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

And as for your kind suggestion, that's my intent.

Start with getting away from the internet and the computer. That's not very Babylonian.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Companies produce an end product directly or indirectly.  What is it?  Your customers at the end of the service line must produce something.

I don’t work for a company. I do R&D for the government. I make atomic clocks, but they are not sold to any customer.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

So this thread concerns the science I subscribe to, that being ancient science.

Your subscription contains numerous flaws which have been addressed in more recent updates. How do you overcome such an inherent handicap?

How do you draw a line in the sand on accumulated human knowledge ("NO, from here on the information can't be trusted!")? Where does the ancient power stop and science starts to decline? Can it be anything but arbitrary and subjective?

I made a table using an axe only, and it didn't turn out nearly as nice as the one I made with my power tools. Why is that?

52 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

What other service to mankind does modern science make?

This is the type of question one asks when one is determined to argue against any answer, no matter what. I'm truly sorry you see no wonder in our best current explanations.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Companies produce an end product directly or indirectly.  What is it?  Your customers at the end of the service line must produce something.

GPS (Global Positioning System) is free to use by everybody service.

You use it in e.g. Google Maps (or alternative apps), Uber (or alternative taxi-like-apps), global transport of people and goods (monitoring where is truck, train, bus, vessel or airplane).

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

What other service to mankind does modern science make?

Science is knowledge. You want to extend your knowledge in areas that are not fully understood. For instance in biology, genetics, biotechnology, ecology, purpose will be to save humans, animals and plants life.

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I made a table using an axe only, and it didn't turn out nearly as nice as the one I made with my power tools. Why is that?

You tried to rush when using the axe 🪓

##### Share on other sites

How long would it take you to make me one of your chessboards with an axe? And don't look at your watch! Use a water clock, or an orrery, or something ancient.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

How long would it take you to make me one of your chessboards with an axe? And don't look at your watch! Use a water clock, or an orrery, or something ancient.

Relative to which reference frame?

##### Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How long would it take you to make me one of your chessboards with an axe?

To accelerate the work on chess figures you need a lathe. Water or donkey accelerated wood lathe. Almost the same design as the watermill.

How long it would take to make watermill with an axe? Maybe couple hours or days. It does not have to be full scale.

Quote

And don't look at your watch! Use a water clock, or an orrery, or something ancient.

You can make a "watch" with a stick on the ground ... (but it won't work at night)

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

This is a windup right ?

How can we dispense with axes and power tools and watches and sundials and well foor, air and water ?

Modern Science has determined that matter is held together by electricity.

Ask any Pharmacist for some pills for this condition.

Oh dear sorry you can't as she is held together by electricity.

But then so are you.

What a mean old world it is.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

This is a windup right ?

That's exactly what it is.

But you're all missing the overriding moss-Babylon connection, which was intended to make a point. Or, shall I say, a blob, or a blip, or a blur.

##### Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's exactly what it is.

moss-Babylon

Was she any relation of Pat Moss-Carlson?

##### Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, studiot said:

Was she any relation of Pat Moss-Carlson?

Mmmm. Maybe. You follow that line of inquiry. I'll keep searching for traces of moss growing in ancient Babylon.

Carlson doesn't sound very Babylonian to me though.

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I don't subscribe to modern science.

He said on a computer plugged into the internet... 🙄

What happened, you run out of stones?

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, iNow said:

Relative to which reference frame?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Was she any relation of Pat Moss-Carlson?

You guys are applying Relativity to a purely pre-classical situation.

The problem with Babylonian science is they had no predictive power. They were inventive mathematicians but they didn't do much abstract thinking, and as an early culture, they mixed their religions in with their science, which is rarely helpful.

WRT "not subscribing" to modern science, I look to medicine. Ancient remedies have become modern ones, except we've used what we've learned over the millennia to remove what isn't necessary. Why would we want to eat the whole plant when a derivative of one of its parts is what cures us?

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The problem with Babylonian science is they had no predictive power.

Isn't that histories problem?

##### Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The problem with Babylonian science is they had no predictive power.

I've been thinking about this too. They had a lot of practical knowledge and "played" with the maths very cleverly, but they didn't have the real drive to relate and understand, the basis for prediction.

They were basically concerned with measuring the land, accounting, and measuring time.

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I've been thinking about this too. They had a lot of practical knowledge and "played" with the maths very cleverly, but they didn't have the real drive to relate and understand, the basis for prediction.

They were basically concerned with measuring the land, accounting, and measuring time.

They were predictive when it came to numbers, but not in any abstract way. They knew about time, and the stars, and could predict eclipses. They built huge granaries to fill against future needs, which is smart. Their methodology was based on concrete observations or religious requirements (didn't they invent astrology?). They lacked the abstract thought required to say, observe a person who is ill, and predict a remedy based on what's noted. IIRC, it was the gods who made people sick in their society, so perhaps that accounts for part of why they didn't develop a better scientific method.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

They were predictive when it came to numbers, but not in any abstract way

I think they were better than that.

Here is a babylonian maths question, translated from cuneiform which uses the formula

$ab = \frac{{{{\left( {a + b} \right)}^2} - {{\left( {a - b} \right)}^2}}}{4}$

In fact they invented the quarter squares multiplication tables which were in use until the mid 20th century.

##### Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

What then are the implications?

I'm going with "none whatsoever".
Feel free to show that I'm wrong.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×