3 ms·
That's really not the conclusion you should be getting if you apply (my?) logic. Of course math is involved. But those things were not built for the sake of ma
by wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
That's really not the conclusion you should be getting if you apply (my?) logic.
Of course math is involved. But those things were not built for the sake of math, their "roots" are in their respective functions (building something impressive, something religious, or crossing a bay).
Edit: I just checked your [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge reference.
You seem to be saying that this geological formation ("transoceanic bridge") is about mathematics too, implying it's man-made. If that's the case, we're playing by different rules of what "logic" means, and our discussion is completely pointless, no offense intended.
- option_greek 13y agoa society where math is common might build such structures without thinking too much about math. like the bridges or dams we build today.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- monsterix 13y agoNo offense taken. Yes, there isn't a proof that the bridge in question is man-made. I deliberately put it up there. GSI claims it 'may be man-made' but it stops at that. Here is something you might want to look at: Search about 'floating rocks of India' (Pumice rocks) that have specific gravity lower than sea water. Once you dig deep into some of it, read through Ramayana and also dive into history of Sri Lanka, I am sure you'll find something really interesting. That's why in the parent comment I wished someone undertook the journey to capture and record "everything" that needs to be explored of history over there.