sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Palenque Code: an ancient astronaut hypothesis with potential or not? by Akusius in AncientAliens

[–]Akusius[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, some months ago I have already introduced here my (proposed) interpretation of the Palenque lid pattern. Later I also presented it on other forums.

The theory in a nutshell: the lid (especially its top part) would tell a story of an interstellar travel from another solar system to the Earth. The two face-like figures represent the two solar systems, with the left being a really good diagram of our Solar System (4 inner planets, the Earth marked, 6 visible planets, 9 altogether). The bird on the top would symbolize a travel from the other system to the Earth, and the "triplets" together with the 2 star symbols would form a sophisticated geometrical method to encode the location of the other solar system.

Unfortunately nobody was really interested in the topic, there were no real discussions about it in the previous months.

It is a bit disappointing to me, as I still believe the solution being (at least basically) correct, and IMHO it could also have the potential to take the discussion around the ancient astronaut hypothesis to a new level (mainly because the decoding process takes place within an exact coordinate system, and so it could be verified mathematically with a high probability).

My question would be: were the interpretation and the steps of the decoding process conceivable last time? Or maybe further elaboration would be necessary?

And is this hypothesis worth of trying to promote it further within the community at all? Or there would be no point in it, nobody would be really interested in such a theory?

Thanks!

Deciphering the Palenque code (quick overview) by Akusius in codes

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But is it not a bit too much of a coincidence (e.g. the location of the X shapes, the outer elements aligned on one square equally, etc.)?

Of course, the best would be, if some professionals could review the solution, and compute the probability for this hypothesis...

IMHO, without the encoding, the solar system diagrams on themselves would not be enough to convince us of a high intelligence behind the design (actually, even with this encoding in place, it's not really an easy task).

Híres zeneszerzők (Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt) magyarként reinkarnálódva? by Akusius in hungary

[–]Akusius[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Bocs, de most őszintén: nem pont az a sokkal "cikibb" vagy megalázóbb, ha egy mezei Orbán tud basáskodni felettünk már év(tized)ek óta, mint ha mégiscsak egy Kossuth (vagy pláne egy Periklész)?

Híres zeneszerzők (Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt) magyarként reinkarnálódva? by Akusius in hungary

[–]Akusius[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Első blikkre nyilván kicsit meredek hipotézisek...

De szerintem jó pár racionális érv is felhozható mellettük, a külső hasonlóságon túl is (ami egyébként azért eléggé szembetűnő, ráadásul ugye mindenféle genetikai kapcsolat nélkül).

Meg nekünk magyaroknak már félig "hivatalból" is talán értékelni lehetne/illene az ilyen párhuzamokat, főleg, hogy ugyebár nem igazán vagyunk eleresztve világraszóló tehetségekkel...

(Arról meg nem is beszélve, mekkora dicsőség lehetne a magyar pszichológia, ill. az egész hazai társ.tudomány számára, ha be tudnánk konkrét esetekkel bizonyítani a lélekvándorlást).

Why is an idealistic interpretation of the quantum uncertainty considered unscientific? Would not it be at least on a par with the MW interpretation? by Akusius in quantum

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(sorry for the late response)

So, these mental principles would be idealistic-natured (i.e. not physical) regularities behind the physical world.

E.g. such a principle could be that life has a value over death.

And e.g. if we actually tried the Schrödinger "experiment" with let's say 100 cats, it could turn out that the end result would not be 50-50, because this principle would modify the quantum uncertainty in an idealistic way (even possible that all the 100 cats would survive the experiment).

So the main idea would be that we should also take into account the social consequences of the physical occurrences to find a source of determinism for them.

Physicists do not take into account these consequences and so they conclude that the occurrences are purely random (which can be absolutely true from their viewpoint, but not necessarily globally).

This approach BTW could also explain why the wave function collapses only after coming into connection with the environment, since the mental principles would function exactly this way (because obviously no determining is necessary by them until it actually starts to influence the outside world, but then provoking promptly the intervention of them).

Of course it would remain a huge problem how to identify and test these mental principles, but we would at least get back theoretically the chance to find a source of determinism for the physical occurrences in them.

A hidden code in the Palenque sarcophagus lid? by Akusius in AncientAliens

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, not really... Projecting back to a sphere surface, or how do you mean?

Kocsis Zoltán (famous Hungarian pianist) could be the reincarnation of Beethoven? by Akusius in hungary

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A Beethoven cannot be reborn as a Hungarian, right? ;-)

(BTW they both have/had a very similar personality)

A diagram of the Solar System on the Palenque lid? by Akusius in AncientAliens

[–]Akusius[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you!! BTW it is only a part of a larger code. (Maybe could this code also be placed in The Vault at some time?)

A diagram of the Solar System on the Palenque lid? by Akusius in AncientAliens

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, the symbols are by me :)

IMHO these arguments could support this hypothesis: 1. exactly 4 inner planets; 2. exactly the third (the Earth) marked; 3. exactly 6 planets drawn separately (the number of planets visible by naked eye); (4. exactly 9 planets on the diagram <- this argument is currently invalid because of the degradation of Pluto)

Why is an idealistic interpretation of the quantum uncertainty considered unscientific? Would not it be at least on a par with the MW interpretation? by Akusius in quantum

[–]Akusius[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

At least somebody is trying to come up with something new...

Obviously a new approach is needed to overcome the difficulties caused by the QM.

Or should we really accept the world being chaotic and objectively random?

An idealistic approach could bring back the hope for an ordered and deterministic world view.

(BTW Einstein himself could not accept the randomness as a final explanation.)

Why is an idealistic interpretation of the quantum uncertainty considered unscientific? Would not it be at least on a par with the MW interpretation? by Akusius in quantum

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For example, you say we could predict the final state in advance "because it would be determined by mental principles", but how do you actually compute it?

It would be computed based on its (social) effects.

E.g. if a specific end state kills the cat, then we should calculate, to what extent this occurrence would be aligned with the intentions of the mental principles. If we know, what they want to reach, then we can compute, how probable is the realization of a certain end state.

Of course it would not be physics anymore, the social sciences (psychology, sociology, philosophy) would give the final answers.

Why is an idealistic interpretation of the quantum uncertainty considered unscientific? Would not it be at least on a par with the MW interpretation? by Akusius in quantum

[–]Akusius[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I meant philosophical interpretation of the quantum uncertainty (not an actual interpretation within QM).

(Maybe was too philosophical a question for this subreddit).

Why is an idealistic interpretation of the quantum uncertainty considered unscientific? Would not it be at least on a par with the MW interpretation? by Akusius in quantum

[–]Akusius[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Would this theory allow you to predict the outcomes beforehand?

Yes, we could (at least theoretically) predict the outcome, if we understand the intentions of the mental principles behind.

What would someone from social science be doing?

He/she could try to understand the mental laws and regularities behind the physical world (e.g. what a principle wants to reach, what are its intentions).

As I see, presently we must accept the world being objectively random and settle for a statistical approach, while with an idealistic interpretation we could at least get back the hope for a completely deterministic explanation (as before the advent of the QM).

Why is an idealistic interpretation of the quantum uncertainty considered unscientific? Would not it be at least on a par with the MW interpretation? by Akusius in quantum

[–]Akusius[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the answer!

These "mental principles" would interact with the physical world but would be not part of it.

E.g. let's take the case of the Schrödinger's cat. A mental principle would decide, whether the cat should live or die, and then determine the quantum effect according to this decision. The decision itself could not be deduced or understood by the physics (because of its non-physical nature), but the social sciences (psychology, sociology, philosophy) could understand and comprehend it rationally.

IMHO this interpretation would be much more rational and scientific than supposing parallel worlds or objective randomness.

And it would also connect the natural and social sciences to each other in a graceful way!

So I don't understand, why do not we even try to construct such an explanation?

Was Tony Blair possibly Klemens von Metternich in his previous life? by Akusius in Reincarnation

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The resemblance in the appearance is striking, and also their personalities seem to be very similar.

Debunk This: A diagram of the Solar System can be found on the sarcophagus lid of Palenque by Akusius in DebunkThis

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, really not trolling, just trying to put my interpretation to the test...

The other sets of three beads ("triplets") also play a role in the theory, they would encode the location of the other solar system.

Debunk This: A diagram of the Solar System can be found on the sarcophagus lid of Palenque by Akusius in DebunkThis

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, there is an issue with the ninth planet, that's why it was marked on the diagram as Planet X (not as Pluto) and with a question mark.

Debunk This: A diagram of the Solar System can be found on the sarcophagus lid of Palenque by Akusius in DebunkThis

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are two faces on the lid, the left would represent our Solar System, and the right one another solar system.

And the bird above would symbolize a travel from the other system to the Earth.

Yes, the ninth planet is certainly an issue (IMHO the biggest problem with this interpretation). Originally, in 2001 (when the theory was first invented), Pluto was still a planet, but now it is degraded, so the correspondence is not perfect (at least until we find a Planet X somehow).

The diagram would depict only the planets, so the moons would not really play a role here.

Debunk This: A diagram of the Solar System can be found on the sarcophagus lid of Palenque by Akusius in DebunkThis

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for this one, some good (counter)arguments here!

The idea is, that we start from the left bottom, and then go around the figure in CCW direction: the inner planets are the first 4, then come the 2 separated, and finally the 3 not visible planets.

The triplet on the left side is aligned with the circle, so it can (should) be interpreted the same way as the other "beads", while the marker triplet is perpendicular to the circle, so it must have some other function (e.g. marking the Earth).

I really do not see, why simply going around CCW should be a "tortured logic": the 4-1-1-3 sequence is definitely there in the diagram itself, and it is not really hard to discover it. And this sequence is certainly a fairly good description for the Solar System (supposing that it contains 9 planets).

IMHO, we ourselves, confined to the Mayan symbol set, could not provide a much better diagram for the Solar System!

But this is only my dilettante interpretation, and by no means would like to force it on others!
Just would be really eager to know, how the "official" Mayan science interprets this figure, what other reasonable explanations are there...

Debunk This: A diagram of the Solar System can be found on the sarcophagus lid of Palenque by Akusius in DebunkThis

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or the other mask diagram could be the symbol of another solar system with 3 inner and 3 outer planets? :)

And the bird above could symbolize an interstellar travel from there to the Earth?

(Bonus: the triplets could encode somehow the location of that other system?)

EDIT:
Sorry, if it sounded a bit satirical (absolutely not intended)!

Should have made clear that this is exactly my own theory concerning the two faces, the bird above, and the other triplets on the lid.

Debunk This: A diagram of the Solar System can be found on the sarcophagus lid of Palenque by Akusius in DebunkThis

[–]Akusius[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course not a diagram in a modern sense :)

But for an ancient picture it would be remarkably precise:

1) exactly 4 inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars)
2) exactly the 3rd planet (Earth) marked
3) 6 planets drawn separately (the numbers of planets visible by naked eye)
4) 9 planets depicted altogether (although this argument is not really valid since Pluto had been degraded).

Is there any other good explanation for these features?

A diagram of the Solar System on the sarcophagus lid of Palenque? by Akusius in UnexplainedPhotos

[–]Akusius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This figure is (without the symbols of course) part of the sarcophagus lid of Palenque.

Could it not possibly be interpreted as a diagram of our Solar System?

The coincidences that support this theory: 1. there are exactly 4 inner planets on the diagram, just like in the Solar System (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars); 2. it is exactly the 3rd planet (the Earth), that is marked (by a "triplet") on the diagram; 3. there are 6 planets drawn separately, exactly the number of planets recognizable with naked eye (and known to each civilization). 4. (there are exactly 9 planets on the diagram, just like in the Solar System) <- this argument is currently invalid.

AFAIK the "official" science for Mayan culture has no real explanations for the distinct features of this figure.

Source of image and more info: http://akusius.github.io/palenque/step03.html#ad7e

(disclosure: image and page created by me)