Topic: Ancient Astronaut Theory & The Space Jockey

[Deuterium]

The Secret Life Of Chaos.

An award winning BBC4 documentary. Professor Jim Al-Khalili uncovers one of the great mysteries of science – how does a universe that starts off as dust end up with intelligent life?

The latter half of the 20th century exposed the true workings of the natural world to Science. Chaos Theory has destroyed the Newtonian mechanics dream and shown time and time again that nature is not completely deterministic (like an orrery) and that complexity can emerge spontaneously from simple systems without any outside influence whatsoever.

No Ancient Astronauts or Intelligent Designers required.

Hi 180924609:

I haven't had a chance to watch the program you linked to, however, as with so many of these science/math "popularizations",  the exceedingly general treatment of the subject matter can sometime leave a general audience with false impressions.  Chaos Theory, and it's mathematical expressions, are completely deterministic.  It does not involve any intrinsic stochasticity.  The apparent non-deterministic evolution of these non-linear, complex systems is simply a function of;
a) insufficient precision in measurement of initial conditions
b) insufficient computational resources to follow the long-term evolution of the system -- which is a bit of a moot point, as the tiniest error in measurement of initial conditions usually results in a continuous deviation in the physical model from the theoretical calculations.

So, they are completely deterministic, in theory, but non-deterministic in real-life practice...but only due to human limitations, and the error involved in all human designed instruments.  I think the confusion may lie in automatically equating non-linear (and unpredictable) with non-deterministic.  One does not necessarily follow the other.
A chaotic system is typically highly non-linear, but is fundamentally deterministic.

The simplest example of a highly chaotic system whose behavior quickly becomes intractable over time evolution is the double  (compound) pendulum.  Compare that with a simple pendulum.  Just be adding one additional hinge/pivot and tacking on a second pendulum arm to what was a simple, predictable pendulum, completely changes the dynamics and time evolution of the system...and makes it effectively non-predictable.

Also, the Mandlebrot Set (and fractals, in general) are completely deterministic (after all, they are calculated by iterated mathematical functions)...however, they are used in Chaos Theory as models of systems that feature some of the attributes of Chaos, i.e. great complexity, but are fundamentally predictable, which is why they are such a good model for exploring unpredictable chaotic systems.

All this is not to deny that there appears to be very real, non-deterministic priniciples at work in Nature.  Beta Decay (and radioactive decay, in general) is just one example within Quantum Theory.

[Vepariga]

I believe in the Ancient astronaut theory,I also believe something has interfered with our evolution. I dont however believe in the Anunnaki in the way most people say they are. And the whole Nibiru thing is rubbish.

Prometheus may dabble on some tones that popular theory suggests,I have no doubt.

[180924609]

The Secret Life Of Chaos.

An award winning BBC4 documentary. Professor Jim Al-Khalili uncovers one of the great mysteries of science – how does a universe that starts off as dust end up with intelligent life?

The latter half of the 20th century exposed the true workings of the natural world to Science. Chaos Theory has destroyed the Newtonian mechanics dream and shown time and time again that nature is not completely deterministic (like an orrery) and that complexity can emerge spontaneously from simple systems without any outside influence whatsoever.

No Ancient Astronauts or Intelligent Designers required.

Hi 180924609:

I haven't had a chance to watch the program you linked to, however, as with so many of these science/math "popularizations",  the exceedingly general treatment of the subject matter can sometime leave a general audience with false impressions.  Chaos Theory, and it's mathematical expressions, are completely deterministic.  It does not involve any intrinsic stochasticity.  The apparent non-deterministic evolution of these non-linear, complex systems is simply a function of;
a) insufficient precision in measurement of initial conditions
b) insufficient computational resources to follow the long-term evolution of the system -- which is a bit of a moot point, as the tiniest error in measurement of initial conditions usually results in a continuous deviation in the physical model from the theoretical calculations.

So, they are completely deterministic, in theory, but non-deterministic in real-life practice...but only due to human limitations, and the error involved in all human designed instruments.  I think the confusion may lie in automatically equating non-linear (and unpredictable) with non-deterministic.  One does not necessarily follow the other.
A chaotic system is typically highly non-linear, but is fundamentally deterministic.

The simplest example of a highly chaotic system whose behavior quickly becomes intractable over time evolution is the double  (compound) pendulum.  Compare that with a simple pendulum.  Just be adding one additional hinge/pivot and tacking on a second pendulum arm to what was a simple, predictable pendulum, completely changes the dynamics and time evolution of the system...and makes it effectively non-predictable.

Also, the Mandlebrot Set (and fractals, in general) are completely deterministic (after all, they are calculated by iterated mathematical functions)...however, they are used in Chaos Theory as models of systems that feature some of the attributes of Chaos, i.e. great complexity, but are fundamentally predictable, which is why they are such a good model for exploring unpredictable chaotic systems.

All this is not to deny that there appears to be very real, non-deterministic priniciples at work in Nature.  Beta Decay (and radioactive decay, in general) is just one example within Quantum Theory.

Popularisation? Try telling that to Edward Lorenz!

The Mandelbrot Set is repeatable, correct, but every new iteration will produce structure/objects that are totally unpredictable - thats the whole point. And its nothing to do with human limitations. I'm surprised you dont understand that?

[ChrisPachi]

Chaos Theory has destroyed the Newtonian mechanics dream and shown time and time again that nature is not completely deterministic

I was wondering about that also... I didn't think that there was anything in modern physics that suggested that the Newtonian dream was wrong, just more complicated than Newton would have liked. If all physical systems move deterministically from state to state then you can potentially predict any future state if and only if you can know everything about the initial conditions from moment to moment, which is of course practically impossible.

My (limited) understanding is that non-deterministic random states of any physical system are contradictory to all theories of physics. You have to be able to go from one state to the other and back again, otherwise it is an invalid physical theory.

Sorry to hijack the conversation; I read a lot about this stuff and rarely get to discuss it with learned folk.

[Deuterium]

The Mandelbrot Set is repeatable, correct, but every new iteration will produce structure/objects that are totally unpredictable - thats the whole point. And its nothing to do with human limitations. I'm surprised you dont understand that?

180924609,

Respectfully, this is not correct.  Given the previous iterations input values, and knowing the generating function (always a given), the next iteration is completely and utterly predictable...as is every successive step.  So many points have to be plotted, to begin to form even a rudimentary graph of the Mandlebrot Set featuring some degree of complexity, that a computer is needed.  Nevertheless, it could theoretically be computed and charted by hand...given enough humans and sufficient time.

If you mean that we cannot immediately visualize what the structure will look like n-computations later in the series, then yes, it is "unpredictable" in that sense.  But the same occurs generally with any non-linear, complex function, not just fractals.  And yes, in this case, it is solely due to the limitations of the human mind's processing ability.  As an analogy, no single human can automatically "predict" what the future orbital positions of the planets will be on, say July 14, 2015.  However, that didn't stop NASA from launching the New Horizons spacecraft in January of 2006...and being able to calculate the precise trajectory necessary so that New Horizons will perform a close fly-by of Pluto and Charon on July 14, 2015.  How is this predicted?  Newtonian Mechanics, and a lot of computational number crunching.

[Snark]

[180924609]

The Mandelbrot Set is repeatable, correct, but every new iteration will produce structure/objects that are totally unpredictable - thats the whole point. And its nothing to do with human limitations. I'm surprised you dont understand that?

180924609,

Respectfully, this is not correct.  Given the previous iterations input values, and knowing the generating function (always a given), the next iteration is completely and utterly predictable...as is every successive step.  So many points have to be plotted, to begin to form even a rudimentary graph of the Mandlebrot Set featuring some degree of complexity, that a computer is needed.  Nevertheless, it could theoretically be computed and charted by hand...given enough humans and sufficient time.

If you mean that we cannot immediately visualize what the structure will look like n-computations later in the series, then yes, it is "unpredictable" in that sense.  But the same occurs generally with any non-linear, complex function, not just fractals.  And yes, in this case, it is solely due to the limitations of the human mind's processing ability.  As an analogy, no single human can automatically "predict" what the future orbital positions of the planets will be on, say July 14, 2015.  However, that didn't stop NASA from launching the New Horizons spacecraft in January of 2006...and being able to calculate the precise trajectory necessary so that New Horizons will perform a close fly-by of Pluto and Charon on July 14, 2015.  How is this predicted?  Newtonian Mechanics and a lot of fine grain computational number crunching.

Alleluia - you finally got it! Its not the instantanious digital computation steps that are unpredictable, its the 'final' outcome of the structures/objects that are. But, of course there is no 'final' structure for the Mandelbrot set - that could continue to develop infinitely more complex structure forever.

Of course the Mandelbrot set is simply a 'trivial' digital computer simulation showing how complex structure can spontaneously emerge - which Newtonian mechanics would not predict. Now imagine what an 'analogue' domain organic chemical system can potentially achieve.

[Capovin]

This is really not a scientific argument, it's a philosophical one.  Even if you're 100% correct that doesnt automatically exclude intelligent design, like what was reiterated again and again in the previous thread we know very little in the scheme of things. To say we understand a higher power (if there is one) and how it works is ridiculous. 100 years from now I can almost garauntee many of our current theories will be given MAJOR overhauls. We don't know everything, we have ideas for how things came about and several theories, but to put your foot down and say "thats what happened" is jumping the gun, you don't know and you will never know. You can believe it, have complete faith in that idea, but you don't know.

[ChrisPachi]

Its not the instantanious digital computation steps that are unpredictable, its the 'final' outcome of the structures/objects that are

Maybe I'm missing the point, but if you can predict each next step in a sequence how can the nth step of that sequence be unpredictable? This is surely just epistemological, ie. dependent on what you can know about a system that might make it appear unpredictable. Even apparently random quantum systems can be accurately predicted, it just depends on how long (or short) your yard stick is?

[Michael Harper]

These always make me laugh, haha.

[timiteh]

I don't understand why some are so hostile to the ancient astronaut theory.
In terms of science, technology and knowledge of the universe we are but extremly primitive.
Many of the technologies we have now would have been unbelievable for people a few centuries or even decades ago.Though nothing can make us believe that  in a far past, some civilizations were not more advanced than us.
Thus can we even begin to imagine how advanced a race with thousands or millions of years old technology could be ?
What make people think that such a race would not have enough time or intelligence to fully understand some significant aspects of life and DNA ?
With such a knowledge and advanced terraforming capabilities, what would prevent such a race to start life on a planet such as earth, to monitor it and to later come to behave as gods to whatever intelligent life appear on this planet.
This would not make them the source of life, but some kind of facilitators for its appearance and development.
In fact, such an intelligent life could even be a dumbed down/hybrid version of themselves.

In the bible, there is a reference to some superior beings called the Ben'ai Elohim (litteraly sons of the gods) or the watchers who came to earth and procreate with women hybrids who were abominations (giants,some supposedly up to 144 meters, super powered being,etc..). Those superior beings and their offspring were one of the main reason if not the main reason of the flood because all the forbidden knowledge they taught to men and of all the abominations they did.
Their story is cleary related in the first book of Henoch, unfortunatelly removed from bible despite it was very informative about the very reasons of the flood.

And for the record, i believe in God, the supreme creator and direct creator of mankind,  though contrary to many i think that God is far more powerful and smart than we could ever hope to imagine. I also believe that the universe is far more complex than we can understand and i would not be surprised that there is a full hierarchy of being way more ancient, way more advanced and powerful than we are, for whom we are nothing more than insects or even less.And finally I believe that whatever the so called creators are supposed to have achieved in the alike of ancient astronaut theory is extremly insignificant compared to what God can do. In almost all this theories, as well as some religions such as olympian one, these so called ancient astronauts/gods are themselves so far from the notion of supreme creator/being that it is not even funny.

[OpenMaw]

Nobody has a problem with Ancient Astronaut theory because it says there are alien races with millions of years of advancement behind them when compared to humans current technological understanding.

They have a problem with it implying that human beings didn't do things that they did in fact do.

People have a problem with it because it implies human beings needed help to get where we are, and it tries to explain very specific things with the excuse of "ALIENS HELPED US!" When we know, now especially, there were explinations just waiting to be discovered.

For example. The Pyramids... ALIENS.

It's just pathetically lazy.

Let me put it into a really stupid example.

I have a scratch on my arm, it's a very nasty scratch too. I have no idea where it came from. It wasn't there when I went to bed, and I can't see any sharp objects around where I was laying when I woke up...

...IT MUST HAVE BEEN THOSE PESKY ALIENS.

More than likely the answer to questions, like how the Hell the pyramids or other ancient wonders were achieved comes down to one simple explanation; We just don't fully understand the engineering involved yet, it was something we lost to the annals of time. There was that huge chasm in our history known as the Dark Ages. The fall of classical civilization. It took us a long time to finally come out of that madness. Along the way a lot of books, a lot of knowledge, was lost. Human cultivated knowledge. We've been relearning a lot of that, and in most respects far surpassed it, but for where we have great machines to dig and forge, in ancient times they had to use massive slave armies to build things. They had to do everything manually. And to some, it just seems inconceivable that it could be done, and yet, "there it is."

[dxdt]

I read the first book in Sitchin's series a few years ago. I enjoyed it, but it did not have a significant effect on my worldview.

He does a pretty good job of introducing disparate mythological and historical elements, and developing a compelling narrative.  But compelling isn't the same as convincing. Much of his story is clearly invented. He goes to great lengths to seem science-y, but he's very loose with his reasoning and evidence. Every triangle in every blurry picture is a spaceship. But his major chain of evidence comes not from studying artefacts, but from his interpretation of ancient mythologies and languages.  (Of the latter, he claims to be one of few experts in the world(!), yet he acknowledges getting help translating passages in Hebrew!)

Commonalities between mythologies are nothing new, and they suggest nothing more than cross-cultural contact. In fact, you might say that by interpolating spaceships, genetic engineers, and other modern elements into the old stories, he's doing the same as the ancients, co-opting old stories, and tweaking them to contain the explanation he'd like them to contain.

But most frustrating are his... inventive... translations. Here's an actual example.  In a certain text, I think it's the Tower of Babel story, a certain people are dissatisfied with their station and wish to elevate themselves. "They made a SHEM for themselves," he leaves SHEM untranslated. Where apparently the common reading of SHEM is "name," Sitchin substitutes "spaceship."  (I kid you not!)  So that passages like "they raised up their SHEM" and "now their SHEM was like the Gods'" have radical new implications.  Nevermind that there's no external evidence to suggest the Sumerians had a word for "spaceship" any more than they had a word for "Internet."

It's fun to speculate about alternatives to our accepted models of reality. That's why we're drawn to science fiction. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, some people have a harder time distinguishing fiction from fact.

[ChrisPachi]

I read the first book in Sitchin's series a few years ago. I enjoyed it, but it did not have a significant effect on my worldview.

He does a pretty good job of introducing disparate mythological and historical elements, and developing a compelling narrative.  But compelling isn't the same as convincing. Much of his story is clearly invented. He goes to great lengths to seem science-y, but he's very loose with his reasoning and evidence. Every triangle in every blurry picture is a spaceship. But his major chain of evidence comes not from studying artefacts, but from his interpretation of ancient mythologies and languages.  (Of the latter, he claims to be one of few experts in the world(!), yet he acknowledges getting help translating passages in Hebrew!)

Commonalities between mythologies are nothing new, and they suggest nothing more than cross-cultural contact. In fact, you might say that by interpolating spaceships, genetic engineers, and other modern elements into the old stories, he's doing the same as the ancients, co-opting old stories, and tweaking them to contain the explanation he'd like them to contain.

But most frustrating are his... inventive... translations. Here's an actual example.  In a certain text, I think it's the Tower of Babel story, a certain people are dissatisfied with their station and wish to elevate themselves. "They made a SHEM for themselves," he leaves SHEM untranslated. Where apparently the common reading of SHEM is "name," Sitchin substitutes "spaceship."  (I kid you not!)  So that passages like "they raised up their SHEM" and "now their SHEM was like the Gods'" have radical new implications.  Nevermind that there's no external evidence to suggest the Sumerians had a word for "spaceship" any more than they had a word for "Internet."

Everything you wrote there. Great post.

One of the funniest fumbles of AA is how literal they are about what they claim to be highly advanced alien space travelers. An example is Daniken's claim that the Nazca lines were 'landing strips', and that various stone structures - inevitably in South America - were quite literally 'launching ramps' for alien spacecraft.

[Anunnaki]

Trust me, not everyone interested in the ancient astronaut theory believes that aliens had direct influence on certain structures like the Giza pyramids.... Thats a complete misconception and probably best left for a History Channel television show, if you catch my drift.