Isekai Kenkokuki - Ch. 67

[electro_neanderthal]

this is comedically false

the romans did have the knowledge to do a lot more than they did, and a lot of theory on stuff created around the age of exploration was thought of during the roman times but their society was far more philosophically dogmatic and did not ever endorse "disruptive invention" that may destabilize the population by adding more poverty by removing a educated class

Tiberius killing the man who "invented unbreakable glass" is a prime example, it's not a story the romans treated as a slight against him but a moral virtue of keeping the needs of the many roman glassmakers over the single inventor

That's whataboutism. Just because the Romans had more knowledge than they implemented, doesn't mean they had the ability to, at the drop of a hat, create the tools necessary for perfectly round cylinders through large amounts of metal at quantities that would kick off an industrial revolution.

We currently have the knowledge to make an O'neill cylinder... doesn't mean we're capable of making one and sending people off to deep space in our lifetimes.

Or are you going to say the Romans had O'Neill cylinders first just because they had knowledge of more technology than they could build?

If they had the ability to make perfectly round cylinders through blocks of iron in large batches, please give me a source. If that one point I made was so comically false, it should be easy, right?

 

[Manchura]

That's whataboutism. Just because the Romans had more knowledge than they implemented, doesn't mean they had the ability to, at the drop of a hat, create the tools necessary for perfectly round cylinders through large amounts of metal at quantities that would kick off an industrial revolution.

We currently have the knowledge to make an O'neill cylinder... doesn't mean we're capable of making one and sending people off to deep space in our lifetimes.

Or are you going to say the Romans had O'Neill cylinders first just because they had knowledge of more technology than they could build?

If they had the ability to make perfectly round cylinders through blocks of iron in large batches, please give me a source. If that one point I made was so comically false, it should be easy, right?

I see, I see, a "raise the stakes" argument where when one cant refute a historical point, they state it's whataboutism then demand the other try and justify an outlandish claim made by the person making the raise the stakes argument

classic 16 year old behavior

 

[electro_neanderthal]

I see, I see, a "raise the stakes" argument where when one cant refute a historical point, they state it's whataboutism then demand the other try and justify an outlandish claim made by the person making the raise the stakes argument

classic 16 year old behavior

I see someone who used whataboutism and got caught. You didn't refute anything I said, you just told irrelevant stories and pretended they refuted what I said.

"One Roman figured out indestructible glass, therefore they can build large enough precision lathes and cast large blocks of iron that don't crack and...."

And how can you not produce a factual source that refutes what I said? There's nothing outlandish about asking to be shown something the Romans could do that would indicate they could be building steam engines capable of doing work in a couple of years turnover. We have the internet.

Here, let me do your outlandish job for you: "By the late 3rd century AD, all essential elements for constructing a steam engine were known by Roman engineers: steam power (in Hero's aeolipile), the crank and connecting rod mechanism (in the Hierapolis sawmill), the cylinder and piston (in metal force pumps), non-return valves (in water pumps) and gearing (in water mills and clocks)[52]"

Keep in mind, these are disparate components that were never assembled together, nor do we have proof that a useful steam engine was ever conceptualized, the metal force pumps are not capable of driving heavy equipment (they were bilge pumps made of softer metal), cast iron is 6th century (well after the fall of the Western Roman empire), and energy requirements demand so much that Rome wasn't capable of powering an industrial revolution without so much cost it would cause them to fail economically.

But instead of any of that, you just told me why they wouldn't, and how they would even intentionally destroy such a disruptive technology. Would that not prove my point further?

Thanks for nothing, I guess.

 

[Manchura]

I see someone who used whataboutism and got caught. You didn't refute anything I said, you just told irrelevant stories and pretended they refuted what I said.

"One Roman figured out indestructible glass, therefore they can build large enough precision lathes and cast large blocks of iron that don't crack and...."

And how can you not produce a factual source that refutes what I said? There's nothing outlandish about asking to be shown something the Romans could do that would indicate they could be building steam engines capable of doing work in a couple of years turnover. We have the internet.

Here, let me do your outlandish job for you: "By the late 3rd century AD, all essential elements for constructing a steam engine were known by Roman engineers: steam power (in Hero's aeolipile), the crank and connecting rod mechanism (in the Hierapolis sawmill), the cylinder and piston (in metal force pumps), non-return valves (in water pumps) and gearing (in water mills and clocks)[52]"

Keep in mind, these are disparate components that were never assembled together, nor do we have proof that a useful steam engine was ever conceptualized, the metal force pumps are not capable of driving heavy equipment (they were bilge pumps made of softer metal), cast iron is 6th century (well after the fall of the Western Roman empire), and energy requirements demand so much that Rome wasn't capable of powering an industrial revolution without so much cost it would cause them to fail economically.

But instead of any of that, you just told me why they wouldn't, and how they would even intentionally destroy such a disruptive technology. Would that not prove my point further?

Thanks for nothing, I guess.

my point was their theory craft was on point for much more than they created but they refused to act upon it to create stuff using the Tiberius glass example to how romans treated innovation on a moral scale (as you can see from the very first post)

you called it whataboutism to deflect the point by demanding I explain how the romans could create tech that even we only can understand the theory of, which is a raising the stakes argument used by teens to try and appear to have a point when they dont

not to mention you in your infinite wisdom, tried to proclaim that the very real and built roman steam machine was just a theory they had no ability to make thus denying an actual historical invention they made as nothing more than a myth

 

[asfhoiasfjoiasfjpi]

people talking about almus's relationships and forgetting the big picture:
#WEED420

 

[electro_neanderthal]

my point was their theory craft was on point for much more than they created but they refused to act upon it to create stuff using the Tiberius glass example to how romans treated innovation on a moral scale (as you can see from the very first post)

you called it whataboutism to deflect the point by demanding I explain how the romans could create tech that even we only can understand the theory of, which is a raising the stakes argument used by teens to try and appear to have a point when they dont

not to mention you in your infinite wisdom, tried to proclaim that the very real and built roman steam machine was just a theory they had no ability to make thus denying an actual historical invention they made as nothing more than a myth

I called it whataboutism because you basically argued against my point with "what about this other technology, that's proof that Rome was capable of this other unrelated technology" instead of offering proof that I was wrong about the technology in question.

A steam engine is a whole other technology, with entirely different means and materials needed for production. It's an apples to oranges comparison. You can make glass and have no clue how to build a boat. You can make a steam engine and have no idea how to make a fancy hat.

Or maybe I should have called it a non-sequitur, too, because the logic, as maybe you see now, doesn't follow the way you thought it does.

And I never said the machine shown in the post I was first responding to didn't exist. That's just putting words in my mouth. Here, let me quote the post I first responded to:

"Imagine if the romans actually took their steam engine seriously."

This, of course, implies ancient Rome could have started the industrial revolution, which is what the steam engine powered and why it's so important. That's what I responded to.

Unless you believe that the device they actually built could do useful work (the one in the picture that was provided), you ought to realize that design is a novelty to prove steam can push something and nothing more. The design is inefficient and underpowered for any real task and incapable of being filled with water while moving as well as a safety hazard while refilling if scaled up.

So, in order for Rome to have taken the steam engine seriously, they would have to re-design it to something like the ones we saw in the early industrial revolution with large pistons at tight tolerances (not as tight as today, but still far tighter than their machines were capable of creating), cast iron and steel components that can take the high temperatures and stresses, and lubricants that don't gum up the engines.

Because even when steam engines were first seriously used, they were only really used to pump water out of coal mines because their piston walls' loose tolerances and need for far too much coal kept them niche until the breakthrough of machining a solid cylinder to tight tolerances enabled their widespread adoption.

John Wilkinson was half of the reason James Watt's steam engine gained the necessary efficiency to run well enough for use in other applications. And even that would be improved upon.

So, could the Roman empire:
-Cast large cylinders of quality iron and/or steel?
-Machine those to standards not yet seen by mankind?
-Have enough coal mines and iron mines to make that many engines (and the technology required for it—dynamite wasn't around yet, so mining was a much slower process)?
-Make screws necessary for engines to stay together?

Screws weren't used to hold things together until the 15th century, and the screw lathe wasn't invented until the 1700s, which was necessary for mass production in the industrial era.

Thus, I claim—this time with a more accurate view of the facts—the Roman Empire was incapable of making steam engines such that they would enter into the industrial revolution.

I know the research paper says 3rd century, but that's really misleading in this conversation. The Roman empire understood the concepts by then, they just didn't have all the technology at a level necessary to facilitate production on the level it needed to have... as I originally said, though with other words, in all fairness.

 

[Manchura]

I called it whataboutism because you basically argued against my point with "what about this other technology, that's proof that Rome was capable of this other unrelated technology" instead of offering proof that I was wrong about the technology in question.

A steam engine is a whole other technology, with entirely different means and materials needed for production. It's an apples to oranges comparison. You can make glass and have no clue how to build a boat. You can make a steam engine and have no idea how to make a fancy hat.

Or maybe I should have called it a non-sequitur, too, because the logic, as maybe you see now, doesn't follow the way you thought it does.

And I never said the machine shown in the post I was first responding to didn't exist. That's just putting words in my mouth. Here, let me quote the post I first responded to:

"Imagine if the romans actually took their steam engine seriously."

This, of course, implies ancient Rome could have started the industrial revolution, which is what the steam engine powered and why it's so important. That's what I responded to.

Unless you believe that the device they actually built could do useful work (the one in the picture that was provided), you ought to realize that design is a novelty to prove steam can push something and nothing more. The design is inefficient and underpowered for any real task and incapable of being filled with water while moving as well as a safety hazard while refilling if scaled up.

So, in order for Rome to have taken the steam engine seriously, they would have to re-design it to something like the ones we saw in the early industrial revolution with large pistons at tight tolerances (not as tight as today, but still far tighter than their machines were capable of creating), cast iron and steel components that can take the high temperatures and stresses, and lubricants that don't gum up the engines.

Because even when steam engines were first seriously used, they were only really used to pump water out of coal mines because their piston walls' loose tolerances and need for far too much coal kept them niche until the breakthrough of machining a solid cylinder to tight tolerances enabled their widespread adoption.

John Wilkinson was half of the reason James Watt's steam engine gained the necessary efficiency to run well enough for use in other applications. And even that would be improved upon.

So, could the Roman empire:
-Cast large cylinders of quality iron and/or steel?
-Machine those to standards not yet seen by mankind?
-Have enough coal mines and iron mines to make that many engines (and the technology required for it—dynamite wasn't around yet, so mining was a much slower process)?
-Make screws necessary for engines to stay together?

Screws weren't used to hold things together until the 15th century, and the screw lathe wasn't invented until the 1700s, which was necessary for mass production in the industrial era.

Thus, I claim—this time with a more accurate view of the facts—the Roman Empire was incapable of making steam engines such that they would enter into the industrial revolution.

I know the research paper says 3rd century, but that's really misleading in this conversation. The Roman empire understood the concepts by then, they just didn't have all the technology at a level necessary to facilitate production on the level it needed to have... as I originally said, though with other words, in all fairness.

oh look, the old "technology is linear and all parts of an invention must exist or it cannot exist" argument

something disproven repeatedly by history...

let me tldr this point so no one else needs to read through a wall of nothing: under this logic if you dont have electricity and all components created to make a computer, you cannot invent a computer (punch card based computing systems already existed), without gasoline and ignition engines you cannot invent a car (steam powered electric cars were a thing before gas powered cars), without the creation of satellites and atmosphere penetrating radar you cannot invent guided weapons (they've been a thing since late WW2), without aluminum and precision welding you cannot invent aircraft (they've been around over 100 years)

in short, a dumb line of logic that once again, says nothing to my original point of "romans squandered the steam engine which they had the theory to start" with the funny addition of adding a little bit meant to be a dig going, and I quote,

you ought to realize that design is a novelty to prove steam can push something

being them proving a theory then doing nothing with it because romans DID NOT innovate things unless they absolutely needed to as it was a morally objectionable thing to invent something that would remove labor and thus, value, from a class of people to them

this MF is using videogame tech tree logic to state how one must create something

 

[electro_neanderthal]

oh look, the old "technology is linear and all parts of an invention must exist or it cannot exist" argument

something disproven repeatedly by history...

let me tldr this point so no one else needs to read through a wall of nothing: under this logic if you dont have electricity and all components created to make a computer, you cannot invent a computer (punch card based computing systems already existed), without gasoline and ignition engines you cannot invent a car (steam powered electric cars were a thing before gas powered cars), without the creation of satellites and atmosphere penetrating radar you cannot invent guided weapons (they've been a thing since late WW2), without aluminum and precision welding you cannot invent aircraft (they've been around over 100 years)

in short, a dumb line of logic that once again, says nothing to my original point of "romans squandered the steam engine which they had the theory to start" with the funny addition of adding a little bit meant to be a dig going, and I quote,

being them proving a theory then doing nothing with it because romans DID NOT innovate things unless they absolutely needed to as it was a morally objectionable thing to invent something that would remove labor and thus, value, from a class of people to them

this MF is using videogame tech tree logic to state how one must create something

Wow, you really aren't able to grasp logic in context.

Your rebuttal to my initial statement was so far removed from my argument that it didn't make sense. I've pointed that out over and over, and now you're exaggerating what I've said to present a logic I'm not using to defeat that point.

I believe doing that is called using a strawman argument.

Just because technology isn't linear, doesn't mean all technology—especially when the products are a result of different material classes and production methods—gets learned at the same pace.

Don't like my conclusions? Maybe provide real rebuttals for the facts I brought up instead of making general statements, trying to change what is being argued about, and calling names.

Well, regardless of this conversation, I hope you have a great day.

 

[eng1]

In Japan weed is classed as a heavy narcotic like cocaine, and even taking a single hit and getting caught will ruin your life there.

Since this is written by a Japanese author you should understand why they can't promote it in a series read by other Japanese people.

Hemp is not weed. Hemp is related to cannabis, but is a different plant. Industrial hemp can't be made into a drug realistically. The concentration of the narcotic is way too low

 

[HDMI1]

Hemp is not weed. Hemp is related to cannabis, but is a different plant. Industrial hemp can't be made into a drug realistically. The concentration of the narcotic is way too low

Do you think the average Japanese reader would know the difference?

 

[eng1]

Do you think the average Japanese reader would know the difference?

You could just use an exact name of a species legal in Japan like Tochigishiro