The mystery of the stones at baalbeck and the pregnant stone - Page 9

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Are you familiar with the work advantage we can get from using simple machines? It's physics. I think I mentioned how I learned about them sometime around 5th grade, but then the science classes I was in might have been slightly advanced.

Education has little to do with feeding people answers and much to do with helping them learn how to think.

Thanks for your time and highly useful input geemack

Maybe someone else here is a mind reader.

GeeMack · 20th November 2012, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Thanks for your time and highly useful input geemack

Any good reason I should continue trying to help you understand, when instead of working a tiny little bit with what I'm offering you, you flip me off?

Quote:

Maybe someone else here is a mind reader.

It looks like at least a few understand the concept I'm working with. I'd venture a guess that at least a few learned about simple machines when they were in grade school, or at least high school. Thinking through a simple physics puzzle doesn't require any mind reading.

phiwum · 20th November 2012, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

One should perhaps avoid using the word "horsepucky" in a post accusing somebody of a childish tactic....

Well, it's my habit to use more offensive language there, but you know the forum rules and censorship software, so I went with a charming alternative.

Would you have preferred "bullhonkies"?

phiwum · 20th November 2012, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

There's a word that describes an untrue comment like the one you made there.

I suppose you mean that you never claimed to know how it was done, but only how it might have been done.

Yeah, I misspoke there. Sorry for that. I don't think it was a terrible error, but it was a misrepresentation.

Quote:

Honestly? It seems your notion of what constitutes honesty is somewhat different than that of the other participants here. Here's some helpful advice: Go re-read the thread, most particularly all my comments, before posting again here. Your persistent misrepresentation of what I've written is not an honest way to engage in a dialog, and frankly it looks pretty foolish.

I'm not too concerned about your opinion of me, and it seems that the apathy is mutual. Not much reason to persist, but my opinion of the immaturity of your participation thus far (or at least as far as the post I was replying to) hasn't changed.

Conversation, even with gullible fringe folk, is not a contest to be won by cleverness. If you actually had a particular method in mind, there's no reason not to have spelled it out by at least the third request to do so.

GeeMack · 20th November 2012, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Conversation, even with gullible fringe folk, is not a contest to be won by cleverness. If you actually had a particular method in mind, there's no reason not to have spelled it out by at least the third request to do so.

Do notice that I've tried at least a few times to find out if Zeuzzz has the physics background necessary to actually understand any explanation I might offer. Also notice that my efforts at that have been met with flippancy and willful ignorance. If he doesn't understand simple machines, he quite possibly won't understand my explanation. If he does understand simple machines, my explanation would likely be unnecessary. But since we don't know one way or another, it puts us in a bit of a quandary until Zeuzzz chooses to participate in a productive, cooperative manner, now doesn't it?

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 08:02 PM

Can you please help me Geemack?

I studied physics at university for three years. This is no secret here.

GeeMack · 20th November 2012, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Can you please help me Geemack?

I studied physics at university for three years. This is no secret here.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say. But this lifting huge stones thing is grade school physics. The relevant question was, are you familiar with the work advantage we can get from using simple machines?

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Yeah, sure, whatever you say. But this lifting huge stones thing is grade school physics. The relevant question was, are you familiar with the work advantage we can get from using simple machines?

In terms of leverage and transporation, yes. I canh onyl guess at what you have in mind at this point though.

But as we pointed out before the stress on wood machines with such weight would severely constrain their effectiveness, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

pakeha · 21st November 2012, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nope, you seem so sure of your views you should be backing up your thought processes with the hard evidence you based it on in the first place.

You can't shift the burden of proof to the person asking questions.

You mean, like the hard evidence you posted up 5 years ago to show the stones are part of a pre-Roman construction?
Or do you have anything more than 100year+ old quotations mined from other writers?
If so, post it up, please.

Originally Posted by Harte

Some things are harder to find than others:
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home..._num_54_1_6623

https://play.google.com/books/reader...thuser=0&hl=en

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00003

Have fun reading.

Harte

Thanks, Harte. Ñom, ñom.

Dancing David · 21st November 2012, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

That's a pretty crappy way to respond. He's said he couldn't figure it out. Intellectual honesty suggests that you should either explain your answer or stop claiming that you know how it was done.

If you had participated in the Zeuzzz song and dance reviews , you would understand. GeeMack is a bit abrasive, but then....

Dancing David · 21st November 2012, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

In terms of leverage and transporation, yes. I canh onyl guess at what you have in mind at this point though.

But as we pointed out before the stress on wood machines with such weight would severely constrain their effectiveness, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Ah yes, now the pretend agreement goes to the actual denial phase, so Zeuzzz, what about those wooden rollers, where is that data that an 800 ton rock would crush the rollers?

Is a earth ramp a simple machine, what about a pulley, what about a lever/winch?

dafydd · 21st November 2012, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

In terms of leverage and transporation, yes. I canh onyl guess at what you have in mind at this point though.

But as we pointed out before the stress on wood machines with such weight would severely constrain their effectiveness, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

We?

Tolls · 21st November 2012, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

We?

Clearly royalty.

dafydd · 21st November 2012, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Tolls

Clearly royalty.

Are any of the royals good at maths?

Tolls · 21st November 2012, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Are any of the royals good at maths?

I doubt it.

shuttlt · 21st November 2012, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Ah yes, now the pretend agreement goes to the actual denial phase, so Zeuzzz, what about those wooden rollers, where is that data that an 800 ton rock would crush the rollers?

Is a earth ramp a simple machine, what about a pulley, what about a lever/winch?

Surely if it was possible to move huge rocks with rollers, a bit of digging and a bunch of muscle you'd find stone monuments left by ancient people all over the globe?

Tomtomkent · 21st November 2012, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Surely if it was possible to move huge rocks with rollers, a bit of digging and a bunch of muscle you'd find stone monuments left by ancient people all over the globe?

You mean like the pyramids? Roman temples? Stone henge? Aztec ruins...

Captain_Swoop · 21st November 2012, 08:07 AM

How about the writings and carvings by the Romans that tell us exactly how they moved huge stones?

carlitos · 21st November 2012, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Surely if it was possible to move huge rocks with rollers, a bit of digging and a bunch of muscle you'd find stone monuments left by ancient people all over the globe?

Yeah, that's crazy talk. Wait...

Zeuzzz · 21st November 2012, 09:03 AM

So many words, such little content.

I've tried googling some of what you just said but drew blanks.

Zeuzzz · 21st November 2012, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Ah yes, now the pretend agreement goes to the actual denial phase, so Zeuzzz, what about those wooden rollers, where is that data that an 800 ton rock would crush the rollers?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...eply&p=8766723

Someone later worked out it's not impossible on a perfectly smooth road, but definitely tests the wood to it's limit, even when 40 rollers are used.

carlitos · 21st November 2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

OK. So your mystery is who mined (?), moved and laid the stones there? Specifically the foundation? How about a diagram or photo with an arrow indicating which stones are mysterious?

Seriously. Your facebook post just had a bunch of photos. It's hard to tell what your specific mystery is.

ETA - Seriously. "It's" is a conjuction of "it" and "is." It's not a possessive pronoun.

Tomtomkent · 21st November 2012, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...eply&p=8766723

Someone later worked out it's not impossible on a perfectly smooth road, but definitely tests the wood to it's limit, even when 40 rollers are used.

What stops more than forty being used? Lay down some rollers, move the stone forwards, leapfrog rollers from the rear to the front.

You know this is all pretty well established and does not require perfectly level roads?

dafydd · 21st November 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...eply&p=8766723

Someone later worked out it's not impossible on a perfectly smooth road, but definitely tests the wood to it's limit, even when 40 rollers are used.

Does this some one have a name?

Vortigern99 · 21st November 2012, 10:05 AM

The laws of physics prevent more than 40 rollers being used. The gods get angry if you try to use more than 40. The extra logs burst into flame and then shoot glowing fire, Ark of the Covenant-style, through all the workers' bodies. It is known.

Also, Romans had no idea how to pave straight, level roads with opus caementicium (masonry resembling modern concrete that was made from crushed rock with burnt lime as binder, with volcanic ash and pulverized brick added to the burnt lime to obtain a hydraulic binder). Nope. No idea at all.

dafydd · 21st November 2012, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

The laws of physics prevent more than 40 rollers being used. The gods get angry if you try to use more than 40. The extra logs burst into flame and then shoot glowing fire, Ark of the Covenant-style, through all the workers' bodies. It is known.

Also, Romans had no idea how to pave straight, level roads with opus caementicium (masonry resembling modern concrete that was made from crushed rock with burnt lime as binder, with volcanic ash and pulverized brick added to the burnt lime to obtain a hydraulic binder). Nope. No idea at all.

And of course there is the mystery of how they built all those aqueducts.

Zeuzzz · 21st November 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Does this some one have a name?

Yes. Castro.

I find it funny that you missed pretty much the most productive post in this thread yet pay attention to all the others.

Originally Posted by Castro

As the pregnant stone has never been moved let's calculate it again but for the Trilithon Stones:

length: 19.6 m
Width: 3.65 m

surface:
19.60 m x 3.65 m = 771.6 in x 143.7 in = 110878.92 sq in

Weight
800 tonnes = 1763700 lbs

flat psi
1763700/110878 = 15.9 psi

Contact surface:

10% : 159 psi
1% : 1590 psi
0.5%: 3180 psi
0.25% : 6360 psi
and
0.265% : 6000 psi

If red cedar has a compressive strength of 6,020 psi, the contact surface must be at least 0.265% of total surface to avoid the wood breaking:

19.60 m x 3.65 m x 0.265% = 1.9 m2

If there are 40 rollers with a diameter of about 0.5 m (remember that the length of the stone is about 20 m) the contact surface per roller must be at least:
1.9/40 = 0.047 m2/roller

The length of a roller is 3.65 m so the width of the total contact surface per roller must be (at least):
0.047/3,65 = 0.013 m = 0.51 in ( about 0.8% of the circumference of a roller...)

Taking into consideration the relative elasticity of the wood, the diameter (19.68 in) and the cicumference (61.8 in) of a roller, it seems coherent IMO.

The forty rollers is in fact constrained by the laws of physics and the coefficient of rolling resistance, even if it increases the surface area touching the stone.

Castro · 21st November 2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

What stops more than forty being used? Lay down some rollers, move the stone forwards, leapfrog rollers from the rear to the front.

You know this is all pretty well established and does not require perfectly level roads?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=160

The calculation was made for rollers with a diameter of 0.5 m. If the length of the stone is 20 m, then the maximum number of rollers supporting the weight of the stone is 40.
If the diameter of the rollers is 0.4 m, then this maximum number is 50, and the minimum width of the contact surface per roller must be 0.010 m = 10 mm to avoid the wood breaking.

So: if diameter of a roller = 0.5 m
then max number of rollers = 40
and minimum width of the contact surface per roller = 13 mm (about 0.8% of the circumference of a roller)
and
if diameter of a roller = 0.4 m
then max number of rollers = 50
and minimum width of the contact surface per roller = 10 mm (about 0.8% of the circumference of a roller either)

FWIW

Captain_Swoop · 21st November 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

So many words, such little content.

I've tried googling some of what you just said but drew blanks.

there is more to research than Google.
How about hitting a Library?

GeeMack · 21st November 2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

What stops more than forty being used? Lay down some rollers, move the stone forwards, leapfrog rollers from the rear to the front.

You know this is all pretty well established and does not require perfectly level roads?

The bigger mystery is how people in the 21st century with even a modicum of reason and a rudimentary understanding of science consider this stone moving stuff a mystery.

dafydd · 21st November 2012, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

The bigger mystery is how people in the 21st century with even a modicum of reason and a rudimentary understanding of science consider this stone moving stuff a mystery.

That is truly a mystery.

Zeuzzz · 21st November 2012, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

there is more to research than Google.
How about hitting a Library?

Most scholars now a days don't sit in a library. They use online journals and google scholar to reference and research their work. Most books are online in ebook format to buy now too. Apart from very dated ones.

Plus I don't believe in violence to public services.

Zeuzzz · 21st November 2012, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

The bigger mystery is how people in the 21st century with even a modicum of reason and a rudimentary understanding of science consider this stone moving stuff a mystery.

You are by far the most mysterious person in this thread.

Care to share any info or ideas yet? Or they going to remain the biggest mystery in this thread, while we happen to have solved many others?

svenax · 21st November 2012, 02:44 PM

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but: There are other examples of Roman stonework that are almost as impressive. The Western Stone^WP in the Western Wall^WP in Jerusalem, for instance. It weights in at 517 tonnes and is not a mystery.

pakeha · 21st November 2012, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

How about the writings and carvings by the Romans that tell us exactly how they moved huge stones?

How about it, Zeuzzz?
Care to tell us the Romans themselves aren't a good source of information about how they did it?
Care to post up any evidence the retaining wall at Baalbeck is pre-Roman?

GeeMack · 21st November 2012, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You are by far the most mysterious person in this thread.

Thanks, I guess. I don't think most of us find this stone moving stuff to be especially mysterious though.

Quote:

Care to share any info or ideas yet? Or they going to remain the biggest mystery in this thread, while we happen to have solved many others?

Given the limited number of tools we call "simple machines", and the very limited materials available to the people of the time, the possible methods for lifting the Stone of the Pregnant Woman twenty feet would be, well, quite limited. If you continue to reduce the possible explanations by setting aside the least likely possibilities...

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

But as we pointed out before the stress on wood machines with such weight would severely constrain their effectiveness, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

... it shouldn't take you much time at all to work out a viable method. Can we eliminate any of those simple machines, and if so, why?

Zeuzzz · 21st November 2012, 07:27 PM

I don't know, you tell me. You are the one that's known the answer within the first few posts since the OP yet not shared your input with the community.

marplots · 21st November 2012, 07:50 PM

Start down this path...
Is there a way to lift stones an appreciable distance upward using only shovels and dirt and such? (Hint: there certainly is)

Now, once you've lifted the stone vertically enough, can't you then use gravity as your slave? (Hint: yes you can)

Would it take a lot of time with just six people with shovels on this size rock? Yep, depending on how far you needed to raise it and move it.

Vortigern99 · 21st November 2012, 07:55 PM

I'm no physicist, but five minutes of research has reminded me that simple machines include wheels and axles, pulleys, levers, ramps and ropes.

We've already been discussing wheels in the form of log rollers, but GeeMack hasn't responded positively to this, so while Zeuzz has admitted it would work, wheels must not be the solution GM has in mind.

The use of levers -- think see-saw -- would require greater force/weight opposite the stone in order to lift it. I haven't done the math, but that's a lot of people/bricks/stones piled up on the other end of the lever. The advantage here is that discrete units of weight can be added to the pile until the weight of the object to be moved is exceeded. Then the lever rises and the stone is raised.

Once the stone has been raised as described above, the stone could be slid/dragged, via ropes and pulleys, by a large number of people and/or beasts of burden, from its position on the raised side of the lever to the top of a ramp. The stone would descend the ramp by the simple workings of gravity -- and/or the continued use of ropes -- to the bottom of the ramp.

Rinse and repeat.

That entire process took me about 8 minutes. Feel free to poke holes in it, as I've admitted I'm no expert in this area, but it's as good place to start as any... without, you know, actually reading about actual methods the Romans and other ancient cultures actually employed.

RoboTimbo · 21st November 2012, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

The use of levers -- think see-saw -- would require greater force/weight opposite the stone in order to lift it. I haven't done the math, but that's a lot of people/bricks/stones piled up on the other end of the lever. The advantage here is that discrete units of weight can be added to the pile until the weight of the object to be moved is exceeded. Then the lever rises and the stone is raised.

Now think about moving the fulcrum off center.

20th November 2012, 07:12 PM	#321
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	Originally Posted by GeeMack Are you familiar with the work advantage we can get from using simple machines? It's physics. I think I mentioned how I learned about them sometime around 5th grade, but then the science classes I was in might have been slightly advanced. Education has little to do with feeding people answers and much to do with helping them learn how to think. Thanks for your time and highly useful input geemack Maybe someone else here is a mind reader.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

20th November 2012, 07:20 PM	#322
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Thanks for your time and highly useful input geemack Any good reason I should continue trying to help you understand, when instead of working a tiny little bit with what I'm offering you, you flip me off? Quote: Maybe someone else here is a mind reader. It looks like at least a few understand the concept I'm working with. I'd venture a guess that at least a few learned about simple machines when they were in grade school, or at least high school. Thinking through a simple physics puzzle doesn't require any mind reading.
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237

20th November 2012, 07:36 PM	#323
phiwum Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,115	Originally Posted by Kid Eager One should perhaps avoid using the word "horsepucky" in a post accusing somebody of a childish tactic.... Well, it's my habit to use more offensive language there, but you know the forum rules and censorship software, so I went with a charming alternative. Would you have preferred "bullhonkies"?
phiwum Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,115

20th November 2012, 07:41 PM	#324
phiwum Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,115	Originally Posted by GeeMack There's a word that describes an untrue comment like the one you made there. I suppose you mean that you never claimed to know how it was done, but only how it might have been done. Yeah, I misspoke there. Sorry for that. I don't think it was a terrible error, but it was a misrepresentation. Quote: Honestly? It seems your notion of what constitutes honesty is somewhat different than that of the other participants here. Here's some helpful advice: Go re-read the thread, most particularly all my comments, before posting again here. Your persistent misrepresentation of what I've written is not an honest way to engage in a dialog, and frankly it looks pretty foolish. I'm not too concerned about your opinion of me, and it seems that the apathy is mutual. Not much reason to persist, but my opinion of the immaturity of your participation thus far (or at least as far as the post I was replying to) hasn't changed. Conversation, even with gullible fringe folk, is not a contest to be won by cleverness. If you actually had a particular method in mind, there's no reason not to have spelled it out by at least the third request to do so.
phiwum Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,115

20th November 2012, 08:00 PM	#325
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237	Originally Posted by phiwum Conversation, even with gullible fringe folk, is not a contest to be won by cleverness. If you actually had a particular method in mind, there's no reason not to have spelled it out by at least the third request to do so. Do notice that I've tried at least a few times to find out if Zeuzzz has the physics background necessary to actually understand any explanation I might offer. Also notice that my efforts at that have been met with flippancy and willful ignorance. If he doesn't understand simple machines, he quite possibly won't understand my explanation. If he does understand simple machines, my explanation would likely be unnecessary. But since we don't know one way or another, it puts us in a bit of a quandary until Zeuzzz chooses to participate in a productive, cooperative manner, now doesn't it?
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237

20th November 2012, 08:02 PM	#326
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	Can you please help me Geemack? I studied physics at university for three years. This is no secret here.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

20th November 2012, 08:20 PM	#327
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Can you please help me Geemack? I studied physics at university for three years. This is no secret here. Yeah, sure, whatever you say. But this lifting huge stones thing is grade school physics. The relevant question was, are you familiar with the work advantage we can get from using simple machines?
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237

20th November 2012, 09:20 PM	#328
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	Originally Posted by GeeMack Yeah, sure, whatever you say. But this lifting huge stones thing is grade school physics. The relevant question was, are you familiar with the work advantage we can get from using simple machines? In terms of leverage and transporation, yes. I canh onyl guess at what you have in mind at this point though. But as we pointed out before the stress on wood machines with such weight would severely constrain their effectiveness, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

21st November 2012, 12:12 AM	#329
pakeha Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 12,333	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Nope, you seem so sure of your views you should be backing up your thought processes with the hard evidence you based it on in the first place. You can't shift the burden of proof to the person asking questions. You mean, like the hard evidence you posted up 5 years ago to show the stones are part of a pre-Roman construction? Or do you have anything more than 100year+ old quotations mined from other writers? If so, post it up, please. Originally Posted by Harte Some things are harder to find than others: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home..._num_54_1_6623 https://play.google.com/books/reader...thuser=0&hl=en http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00003 Have fun reading. Harte Thanks, Harte. Ñom, ñom.

21st November 2012, 05:16 AM	#330
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 36,409	Originally Posted by phiwum That's a pretty crappy way to respond. He's said he couldn't figure it out. Intellectual honesty suggests that you should either explain your answer or stop claiming that you know how it was done. If you had participated in the Zeuzzz song and dance reviews , you would understand. GeeMack is a bit abrasive, but then....
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

21st November 2012, 05:20 AM	#331
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 36,409	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz In terms of leverage and transporation, yes. I canh onyl guess at what you have in mind at this point though. But as we pointed out before the stress on wood machines with such weight would severely constrain their effectiveness, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Ah yes, now the pretend agreement goes to the actual denial phase, so Zeuzzz, what about those wooden rollers, where is that data that an 800 ton rock would crush the rollers? Is a earth ramp a simple machine, what about a pulley, what about a lever/winch?
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

21st November 2012, 06:22 AM	#332
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz In terms of leverage and transporation, yes. I canh onyl guess at what you have in mind at this point though. But as we pointed out before the stress on wood machines with such weight would severely constrain their effectiveness, unless you have evidence to the contrary. We?
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

21st November 2012, 06:35 AM	#333
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,656	Originally Posted by dafydd We? Clearly royalty.
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,656

21st November 2012, 06:36 AM	#334
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Tolls Clearly royalty. Are any of the royals good at maths?
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

21st November 2012, 06:38 AM	#335
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,656	Originally Posted by dafydd Are any of the royals good at maths? I doubt it.
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,656

21st November 2012, 07:04 AM	#336
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,010	Originally Posted by Dancing David Ah yes, now the pretend agreement goes to the actual denial phase, so Zeuzzz, what about those wooden rollers, where is that data that an 800 ton rock would crush the rollers? Is a earth ramp a simple machine, what about a pulley, what about a lever/winch? Surely if it was possible to move huge rocks with rollers, a bit of digging and a bunch of muscle you'd find stone monuments left by ancient people all over the globe?
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,010

21st November 2012, 07:08 AM	#337
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,759	Originally Posted by shuttlt Surely if it was possible to move huge rocks with rollers, a bit of digging and a bunch of muscle you'd find stone monuments left by ancient people all over the globe? You mean like the pyramids? Roman temples? Stone henge? Aztec ruins...
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,759	__________________ @tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

21st November 2012, 08:07 AM	#338
Captain_Swoop Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,903	How about the writings and carvings by the Romans that tell us exactly how they moved huge stones?

21st November 2012, 08:08 AM	#339
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 14,910	Originally Posted by shuttlt Surely if it was possible to move huge rocks with rollers, a bit of digging and a bunch of muscle you'd find stone monuments left by ancient people all over the globe? Yeah, that's crazy talk. Wait...

21st November 2012, 09:03 AM	#340
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	So many words, such little content. I've tried googling some of what you just said but drew blanks.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

21st November 2012, 09:06 AM	#341
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	Originally Posted by Dancing David Ah yes, now the pretend agreement goes to the actual denial phase, so Zeuzzz, what about those wooden rollers, where is that data that an 800 ton rock would crush the rollers? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...eply&p=8766723 Someone later worked out it's not impossible on a perfectly smooth road, but definitely tests the wood to it's limit, even when 40 rollers are used.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

21st November 2012, 09:07 AM	#342
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 14,910	Originally Posted by carlitos OK. So your mystery is who mined (?), moved and laid the stones there? Specifically the foundation? How about a diagram or photo with an arrow indicating which stones are mysterious? Seriously. Your facebook post just had a bunch of photos. It's hard to tell what your specific mystery is. ETA - Seriously. "It's" is a conjuction of "it" and "is." It's not a possessive pronoun.
	Last edited by carlitos; 21st November 2012 at 09:08 AM. Reason: grammer nazi

21st November 2012, 09:44 AM	#343
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,759	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz http://www.internationalskeptics.com...eply&p=8766723 Someone later worked out it's not impossible on a perfectly smooth road, but definitely tests the wood to it's limit, even when 40 rollers are used. What stops more than forty being used? Lay down some rollers, move the stone forwards, leapfrog rollers from the rear to the front. You know this is all pretty well established and does not require perfectly level roads?
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,759	__________________ @tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

21st November 2012, 09:58 AM	#344
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz http://www.internationalskeptics.com...eply&p=8766723 Someone later worked out it's not impossible on a perfectly smooth road, but definitely tests the wood to it's limit, even when 40 rollers are used. Does this some one have a name?
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

21st November 2012, 10:05 AM	#345
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,022	The laws of physics prevent more than 40 rollers being used. The gods get angry if you try to use more than 40. The extra logs burst into flame and then shoot glowing fire, Ark of the Covenant-style, through all the workers' bodies. It is known. Also, Romans had no idea how to pave straight, level roads with opus caementicium (masonry resembling modern concrete that was made from crushed rock with burnt lime as binder, with volcanic ash and pulverized brick added to the burnt lime to obtain a hydraulic binder). Nope. No idea at all.
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,022	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

21st November 2012, 10:08 AM	#346
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 The laws of physics prevent more than 40 rollers being used. The gods get angry if you try to use more than 40. The extra logs burst into flame and then shoot glowing fire, Ark of the Covenant-style, through all the workers' bodies. It is known. Also, Romans had no idea how to pave straight, level roads with opus caementicium (masonry resembling modern concrete that was made from crushed rock with burnt lime as binder, with volcanic ash and pulverized brick added to the burnt lime to obtain a hydraulic binder). Nope. No idea at all. And of course there is the mystery of how they built all those aqueducts.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

21st November 2012, 10:30 AM	#347
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	Originally Posted by dafydd Does this some one have a name? Yes. Castro. I find it funny that you missed pretty much the most productive post in this thread yet pay attention to all the others. Originally Posted by Castro As the pregnant stone has never been moved let's calculate it again but for the Trilithon Stones: length: 19.6 m Width: 3.65 m surface: 19.60 m x 3.65 m = 771.6 in x 143.7 in = 110878.92 sq in Weight 800 tonnes = 1763700 lbs flat psi 1763700/110878 = 15.9 psi Contact surface: 10% : 159 psi 1% : 1590 psi 0.5%: 3180 psi 0.25% : 6360 psi and 0.265% : 6000 psi If red cedar has a compressive strength of 6,020 psi, the contact surface must be at least 0.265% of total surface to avoid the wood breaking: 19.60 m x 3.65 m x 0.265% = 1.9 m2 If there are 40 rollers with a diameter of about 0.5 m (remember that the length of the stone is about 20 m) the contact surface per roller must be at least: 1.9/40 = 0.047 m2/roller The length of a roller is 3.65 m so the width of the total contact surface per roller must be (at least): 0.047/3,65 = 0.013 m = 0.51 in ( about 0.8% of the circumference of a roller...) Taking into consideration the relative elasticity of the wood, the diameter (19.68 in) and the cicumference (61.8 in) of a roller, it seems coherent IMO. The forty rollers is in fact constrained by the laws of physics and the coefficient of rolling resistance, even if it increases the surface area touching the stone.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

21st November 2012, 10:31 AM	#348
Castro Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 475	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent What stops more than forty being used? Lay down some rollers, move the stone forwards, leapfrog rollers from the rear to the front. You know this is all pretty well established and does not require perfectly level roads? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=160 The calculation was made for rollers with a diameter of 0.5 m. If the length of the stone is 20 m, then the maximum number of rollers supporting the weight of the stone is 40. If the diameter of the rollers is 0.4 m, then this maximum number is 50, and the minimum width of the contact surface per roller must be 0.010 m = 10 mm to avoid the wood breaking. So: if diameter of a roller = 0.5 m then max number of rollers = 40 and minimum width of the contact surface per roller = 13 mm (about 0.8% of the circumference of a roller) and if diameter of a roller = 0.4 m then max number of rollers = 50 and minimum width of the contact surface per roller = 10 mm (about 0.8% of the circumference of a roller either) FWIW
Castro Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 475	Last edited by Castro; 21st November 2012 at 10:53 AM.

21st November 2012, 01:42 PM	#349
Captain_Swoop Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,903	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz So many words, such little content. I've tried googling some of what you just said but drew blanks. there is more to research than Google. How about hitting a Library?

21st November 2012, 01:55 PM	#350
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent What stops more than forty being used? Lay down some rollers, move the stone forwards, leapfrog rollers from the rear to the front. You know this is all pretty well established and does not require perfectly level roads? The bigger mystery is how people in the 21st century with even a modicum of reason and a rudimentary understanding of science consider this stone moving stuff a mystery.
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237

21st November 2012, 01:57 PM	#351
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by GeeMack The bigger mystery is how people in the 21st century with even a modicum of reason and a rudimentary understanding of science consider this stone moving stuff a mystery. That is truly a mystery.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

21st November 2012, 01:57 PM	#352
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop there is more to research than Google. How about hitting a Library? Most scholars now a days don't sit in a library. They use online journals and google scholar to reference and research their work. Most books are online in ebook format to buy now too. Apart from very dated ones. Plus I don't believe in violence to public services.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

21st November 2012, 01:59 PM	#353
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211	Originally Posted by GeeMack The bigger mystery is how people in the 21st century with even a modicum of reason and a rudimentary understanding of science consider this stone moving stuff a mystery. You are by far the most mysterious person in this thread. Care to share any info or ideas yet? Or they going to remain the biggest mystery in this thread, while we happen to have solved many others?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211

21st November 2012, 02:44 PM	#354
svenax Thinker Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 236	Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but: There are other examples of Roman stonework that are almost as impressive. The Western Stone^WP in the Western Wall^WP in Jerusalem, for instance. It weights in at 517 tonnes and is not a mystery.
svenax Thinker Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 236	Last edited by svenax; 21st November 2012 at 02:47 PM.

21st November 2012, 03:17 PM	#355
pakeha Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 12,333	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop How about the writings and carvings by the Romans that tell us exactly how they moved huge stones? How about it, Zeuzzz? Care to tell us the Romans themselves aren't a good source of information about how they did it? Care to post up any evidence the retaining wall at Baalbeck is pre-Roman?