I just started reading a book called, Nothing in This Book is True, But its Exactly How Things Are by Bob Frissell. It dedicates a few chapters on The Flower of Life and Sacred Geometry. check it out. A lot of it is out there. its very entertaining.

Yeah lol I've got a copy of this book too, fun stuff. The follow up is called "something in this book is true.." but I think the original is better.

How did the ancients know of this?

Contrary to the human history taught in schools, we are not the first advanced society on planet earth. The ancients preserved some tiny remnants of the advanced societies that preceded ours.

It's highly likely. I subscribe to that notion, or the ancient alien hypothesis. One doesn't necessarily invalidate the other, however.

I'm in agreement with you. This is reddit, so I find it redundant to precede every two sentences I post with "IMHO".

indeed, left it out of the OP to see if anyone brought it up or something similar. people will figure it out soon enough ;)

I agree, I don t believe in ancient astronauts but I think humanity reaches a critical mass every so often then implodes. It could be a natural cycle or just nature s way of maintaining a balance. I think humanity is older than we can imagine, and we may have left this planet and returned more than once.

I'll even leave ancient astronauts on the table, but I suspect they are human, rather than some alien form of life. Everything we observe is cyclic, so it is reasonable to conjecture that humans and the earth are as well. Why so many individuals get heartburn over this view baffles me.

Where is any evidence for these advanced societies that preceded ours? I mean if we went extinct there would be a lot of proof we existed, so where is the proof they existed?

I mean if we went extinct there would be a lot of proof we existed...

If a near extinction level event occurred today in 10,000 years the only evidence that we were here would be the porcelain used in bathrooms and it is likely that the scholars of that future era would consider our toilets to be religious artifacts.

Where is any evidence for these advanced societies that preceded ours?

Plenty of evidence exists, however it rationalized away to fit the conventional wisdom. The links in the OP present some evidence, items found in coal deposits, the mathematics used in the construction of pyramids & other structures, vedic texts, ancient nuclear reactions and a lot of other evidence.

The evidence is abundant when one discards the notion that current global society represents the pinnacle of human advancement.

I've stated my opinion in an extremely succinct manner as I have found trying to persuade those with closed minds to be fruitless.

If your interested in this topic look around, if not feel free to write me off as a nut. I have nothing to gain either way.

Whats up nick?? How have you been dude.

I don't think were talking super advanced like Internet/iPhone, but there is evidence that there probably was a sea-faring civilization that traveled the globe, keeping some of their culture and myth as they traveled. The similarity of the god-myths, the propensity to build pyramids, the similarity of statues on Easter Island to the Dogon/Mali people, etc. There is also some weirdness around the Dogon people, I don't take it as 100% face value, but apparantly they knew of the Star Sirius and knew it had an orbiting second star, and knew it's orbital length (the second star is in a non-visible wavelength.) wiki

Puma Punku is incredibly hard to explain if we use the current archaeological model of civ basically starting 10k years ago, as its dated around there- but consists of extremely incredible stonework of multi-hundred ton stones, perfect right angles, drill holes, just impossibilities for stone tools. This almost absolutely needed machine tools to be made.

Gobleki Tepi is another mystery, as it being dated ~12,000 years ago, also having incredible stonework. The current accepted view is that hunter-gatherers erected it. There's no way. You need planning, mathematics, master stonework, etc.

India's written histories go back 30,000 years, Egypt has pharaohs going back 30,000 years which egyptologists claim are just myth.

The Spyhnx is most likely at least 10,000 years old due to rain erosion patterns on it. We can't date stone, so we look to pottery/etc around the sites of these places, which could have been re-populated many times. The orion correlation theory makes sense to me. Check out Revelations of the Pyramids. It's an amazing doc, id like to see what you think. The main premise is that the 3 giza pyramids would point directly at Orion's belt, while the Sphynx is gazing at Leo, approx 10,500BC. The plateau would function as a giant astronomical analog clock, and it tracks the wobble of the earth (the procession of the equinox'). It sounds insane but the evidence is pretty strong that the Sphynx at least wasn't built when mainstream archaeology says it was.

Stuff like the pyramid pointing north within 5/100's of a degree, Pi, Phi, are also built into the proportions of many dimensions of the pyramid, like the width/length of the kings chamber, the height of the pyramid/the width of the pyramid all come out to very important mathematical numbers. That stuff just baffles me. The Mayans also had incredible knowledge of astronomy, and also most likely correlated their pyramids with stars in the sky during their time.

So the belief is that we lost most information and structure of this and many ancient advanced civilizations when the mini ice age happened around 10k years ago. It would have flooded coastal cities, which are usually the more populated areas. The flood in most ancient religious texts is probably referring to this.

And yeah, for the ancient alien hypothesis... Well I'm still on the UFO kick, so I started to look into the AAH. Sky people, star brothers (native americans), Ezekiel in the bible, The mahabarata tells of a silver-metal chariot that came down, so many names for people that descended from the sky. It's almost every single culture. There are plenty of paintings with flying saucers from 1700s and before. So to me, it didn't take much to decide that if ET is checking us out now, they probably have been for a long time. Suddenly religions makes much more sense.

haha tl;dr i still have way too much free time and aliens.

If you have any free time, this is a pretty cool doc of a dude that's been looking for evidence for like 50 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5DNvYMtkyk

[citation needed]

Dealing with those like you is pointless, as you will find any link(s) provided inadequate. If you believe I'm wrong then tell me where you believe the ancients came up with these modern concepts.

I don't have time for snide little pricks.

Yes, responding to someone pointing out that you didn't provide any citation with insults makes ME the prick.

So, sorry for doing that?

Yawn. Still nothing to say.

Sweet critical thinking and constructive conversation, brah.

"How dare you not simply take me at my word, prick!"

Brilliant.

Answer his question, prick.

I agree it's useless to descend into personal and emotional arguments if we're attempting to be intellectual about things, so please take my above statement as pure jest to highlight how circular such petty indulgences become. I am truly interested to hear what you believe about the origins of knowledge that the ancients had with regards to high level physics and geometry.

Personally I believe given the proper healthy brains and the time, they could reason out things that we think would require grand physical experiments to figure out. Reason is very powerful. Then again, maybe aliens.

You'll notice that at no point have I actually disagreed with him.

He made a claim without citation. I responded by pointing this out, in the hopes of fostering adult, constructive conversation.

He responded with insults.

I do this frequently, because citations and evidence are extremely important when discussing non-mainstream ideas. Just because something doesn't fit with a traditional scientific/mainstream narrative does not excuse it from factual analysis.

There is a tendency in this subreddit (as evidenced by this thread) to fall into a "only question the mainstream" mentality. Blindly accepting every youtube video just because it questions the mainstream is no different than blindly accepting the mainstream narrative itself.

And you continue to avoid putting forth your own hypothesis, you are an intellectual coward, my friend. I'll notice what I notice, not what you'll say I'll notice. I notice that you simply seek to undermine others. Begone troll.

At what point did I claim I had a hypothesis here? Are you really dense enough that you're not understanding this?

Saying, "Gee whiz guy, some citations to support that there claim would sure be nice," is not making a claim. Its trying to have an adult conversation.

Seriously, no one is arguing with you, so feel free to take yourself down off that cross any time you'd like. I think it would be interesting to see some citations, and you're being a child about that.

Why can't they reproduce the methods by which the Great Pyramid was built? There's an example of evidence of high technology. I think you're being ridiculous if you think that there are no mysteries and if you think that human technological development is linear.

Your de facto hypothesis is that our modern knowledge is complete and not missing any knowledges that our ancestors possessed. I personally apologize if you think I was just attacking and insulting you. You just appear to be a troll who won't put forth any alternative theory to the one that you attack. I would characterize a demand of citation to back up the claim that there were ancient high technologies as a troll, as examples abound (Giza Pyramid being one such example). How about the Antikythera mechanism or the Baghdad battery? Now I have cited 3 examples that cause difficulty in our current understanding of historical technological development. Where do you think the technology behind these artifacts originated?

Wow, that's one heck of a hypothesis to pull from "[citation needed]", don't you think?

Again, and I'm really not sure how I can make this any clearer, but at no point have I argued one side or the other. I asked for citations, that is all. The narrative you just provided came from you.

Its easy to get defensive when questioned, but someone asking for evidence does not necessarily mean they are disagreeing with you (I think you and I might have similar thoughts in a lot of ways here, for example).

As for the citationss themselves, be careful using such broad ones. They all fall under the "we don't know exactly, so aliens/ancient industrial society" school of thought.

A lack of proof does not proof make.

Where do you think the technology behind these artifacts originated?

From uniquely insightful individuals ahead of their time. Their ideas were unfortunately perceived as novelties (as radio was initially seen centuries later), nothing more because the majority of people lacked the insight to see how those singular ideas could lead to other leaps in technology.

For example in the 12th century a man created a well organised factory system by gathering together all the weavers in a village under a single roof and structuring their work load. When he died, the whole system fell apart again. (There was a renaissance of sorts in the 12th century, but it could have been far more.)

There was nothing to stop anyone from implementing the same system, and bringing forth an earlier mini-Industrial Revolution, but as I said - he was ahead of his time, and some ideas have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up with them.

Regarding your point about the building of the pyramid - how many stone workers and stone masons do we have today? A lot of knowledge in this area was lost, simply because it has become obsolete or was never recorded, and has been supplanted by other techniques. This wasn't necessarily "high technology", just different tricks of the trade which would have been in daily use.

For example I train with swords. Despite advances in metallurgy, no modern sword I've ever wielded has surpassed a 450 year old singlesword I handled in the Royal Armouries. Why is that? Were aliens helping us make swords back then? No! Obviously not - but there are techniques and highly specialist knowledge involved in such crafts.

If you ever go to /r/engineering, try telling them that we might not be able to create the pyramids today, and they will be highly amused by it. If we wanted to do it, then we could certainly reproduce these structures, and ones superior to the originals.

Good arguments. To /r/engineering with me then, to sit quietly and learn up.

Lol ergot and shrooms....

And this is why I'm a panpsychist neutral monist.

So you believe there exists a subconsious information realm that can be tapped into? Can you elaborate?

Breifly, I don't believe in a subconscious. What I think is the case, is that at a fundamental level the universe is a singular substance that is neither truly physical, or mental in nature, but gives rise to both (neutral monism) and that this fundamental 'material' is what consciousness is comprised of. This would mean that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and that all existent things in it are in some way conscious (this is the panpsychism part). What I mean by consciousness, however, is not a commonsense description, which is being awake, or aware. To me consciousness is not synonomous with awareness and is not something that our brain does; it is informational states that our brains take advantage of to produce awareness (phenomenological experience). As an example: a rock is conscious in the sense that it's subatomic particles and the other various structures that comprise it's form are in an informational state such that when perceived by us (humans) we experience it as a rock. The rock does not have an aparatus to percieve (be aware of) itself, but there is still informational states that I would term consciousness. It's a hard distinction to explain, but one thing to keep in mind when thinking about this is that consciousness =/= awareness (and there is no subconscious, only unawareness). A, perhaps long, but really good read on panpsychism can be found at this site, if you're interested. Hope this kinda explains my thoughts on the matter. The difference is many of the positions talked about on that site and others argue for some form of dualism and I do not, but don't let that bother you, philosophy is full of ideas :).

It's not sacred geometry, it's basic geometry. That's why it was discovered by so many different civilisations and that's why it's in everything. Nothing "spiritual" about it.

i didnt learn about it in school. i didnt define it as sacred bud, you'll have to take that up with the rest of anthropology/historians

Well maybe its sacred in that it was given religious meaning, but the video's seem to imply that there is something spiritualy magic about maths.

I get annoyed when the triumph of mathematics is handed to ancient astronauts or aliens or a spirit. As if we could never manage it ourselves. "how could the egyptians have possibly built such a perfect pyramid" Well it would be harder not to!

Agreed. Make a pile of soil or stones or bricks and you'll end up with a shape that's broad at the base and narrower at the top. It's the most basic stable building shape. Nothing special about that.

A lot of this, including that fraud Jason Padgett, is complete bullshit.

Sincerely, an actual mathematician/physicist

Bullshit that it's found across culture, or bullshit that it can describe matter at the plank level? You cannot doubt that nature aims to replicate Phi in most of it's proportions? Our blood vessels are indeed fractal, as well as the pattern in which heart cells fire/neurons fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life

Bullshit that it's found across culture, or bullshit that it can describe matter at the plank level?

Uhh... both? So it's found "across culture"... I could argue that pi is found even more frequently "across culture" than phi is, as well as plenty of other ratios. Why are you so hung up on this one?

And "can describe matter at the planck level"? Uhh link please? Do you even know what you're talking about at all?

You cannot doubt that nature aims to replicate Phi in most of it's proportions?

Yes I can. It's found in a lot of places in nature, sure, but far, far from most places. Again, many other proportions turn up frequently in nature as well. Why are you so hung up on phi? Because Dan Brown told you to be?

Our blood vessels are indeed fractal, as well as the pattern in which heart cells fire/neurons fire.

They're approximate fractals. They show self similarity. If there's any noteworthy consistency in nature, it's self-similarity. But this doesn't make Spirit Science's or Jason Padgett's words any less of a giant load of sensationalist, candy-coated tripe for the desperately irrational mind.

Now let's look at that link you sent me... at the end of the introduction:

Therefore, an additional aspect to the symbolism is to be found in the fact that the geometrical structure of crystallized water is also the basic structure of the Flower of Life.[citation needed]

Don't expect that citation to come anytime soon. This is a perfect example of the many, many face-palmingly incorrect failures of logic that pervade the Jason Padgett-type pseudoscience mysticism out there. Let's take five seconds and google a picture of the crystal structure of ice real quick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#Characteristics

Whoops! It doesn't look anything like the "flower of life".

If you had paid attention in high school chemistry, or if you had even picked up a simple chemistry book at some point in the past few years out of curiosity, you might have been able to spot this humiliatingly inaccurate statement. But you didn't.

Instead, you've somehow managed to convince yourself that you're educated in the fields of math and science without having to put any work in, aside from presumably watching a couple of totally awesome history channel specials and a handful of crude youtube videos that made extraordinary claims without providing any extraordinary evidence. You latch on to these indefensible conclusions because they "feel" right; because they put the world into terms that you are ready to agree with, and because they satisfy your deep-seated desire to feel like you understand the workings of the universe in a way that few others do - in the easiest way possible. It must be really convenient to be able to see the world that way.

You'd have made a great Christian.

They didn't know of it. This is idiotic.

The Flower of Life can be found in the temples, art, and manuscripts of cultures from all over the world. The following are some of the locations in which the Flower of Life symbol has been sighted:

Assyria – palace of Ashurbanipal.[6]

Egypt – the Temple of Osiris in Abydos[3][7][8][9] and at Mount Sinai.[citation needed]

Hungary

Israel – Masada

China – The Forbidden City[7] and various temples

Japan – various temples

India – The Harimandir Sahib (Golden Temple), Hampi, and the temples at Ajanta[7]

Bulgaria – ancient city of Preslav(893 BC) and in ruins of Kabile, near the city of Jambol

Turkey – various old Roman sites[7]

Spain[7]

Austria[7]

Italy – Italian art from the 13th century (Wolfram 2002, p. 43)[8]

North Africa – Morocco[7]

Middle East – Lebanon and various Islamic mosques[7]

South America – Peru[7]

North America – Mexico[7]

Great Britain – in Westminster Abbey within the 13th century Cosmati pavement.

Edit: I guess they just liked the way the funny circles looked.

And in any Spirograph child's toy.

I fail to see your point. The symbol can clearly be found in several ancient cultures inscribed into countless timeless artifacts/structures.

What does that tell us? They enjoyed drawing circles? Clearly importance was placed onto the symbol because of the vast amount of knowledge it held including mathematics, geometry, musical harmonics, etc. Many ancient cultures knew the importance of the symbol. They idolized it for it. To say that they didn't is idiotic to me.

But I guess because we have a modern children's toy that can replicate it negates thousands of years of archaeological evidence.

At what point did I claim I had a hypothesis here? Are you really dense enough that you're not understanding this?

Saying, "Gee whiz guy, some citations to support that there claim would sure be nice," is not making a claim. Its trying to have an adult conversation.

Seriously, no one is arguing with you, so feel free to take yourself down off that cross any time you'd like. I think it would be interesting to see some citations, and you're being a child about that.