It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Wolfenz
Funny no one mentions this ,,
You See this ??
Thats part of the Gornaya Shoria megaliths in Siberia
yet It Looks So much Like this
Baalbek
originally posted by: DazDaKing
At what point did rollers become the answer for all heavy blocks? It's like an assumed given despite lack of explaination.
originally posted by: DazDaKingLet's actually think about this:
1) How do you lift the block onto and off the rollers?
originally posted by: DazDaKing
3) How do you control the load? Rope? Problem we get here is that the rope they used was too weak in general. That being said there seems to be no other answer available.
originally posted by: DazDaKing4) How was the load made stable during travel?
originally posted by: DazDaKing5) What did they bear their rollers on?
originally posted by: DazDaKingThere's literally no satisfactory answers for these questions so even though I understand your good intentions, it is dangerous to just make this leap of faith that rollers were definitely used.
originally posted by: DazDaKingRegarding rope; the best rope back then (date pam tree) at 2 inch diamter (largest found from ancient times) would break at a tenslie load of about 300kg (0.3 tonnes). A 100 tonne block would require up to 900 (!!) individual ropes on a single block. How was that facilitated? Did they have a pulley based system all along their travel route? Did we have knowledge of pulleys X amount of years ago for example? Does that change our view of history?
originally posted by: DazDaKing
a reply to: Harte
Hey Harte - long time.
Did not realise this was from Roman era? I only just saw this at work and skimmed through. You're right that Roman rope was significantly more advanced than what I quoted.
As for load stability; I was referring to how the block itself was made rigid to the rollers, including the rollers themselves, such that any change of load direction and magnitude via inclines/decline/the fact it's not a flat plane would not cause slippage or failure.
Thanks for spotting my mistake regarding tensile forces. You're right, I was regarding overcoming gravity (I'm tired today, excuse me lol). I'd assume a friction coefficient of about 0.5 considering typical values for steel-steel, granite-granite and so forth. So in reality it's only half the force I quoted (still massive but of course doable).
I agree with everything else, especially the sledge assumption. That is what I have arrived at too. I also expect them to have purposely given their roads the best friction coefficient possible, through some form of wet sand or whatever.
Part of my post was really about the pyramids if I'm honest, because that's where I've most often seen rollers brought up.
Hope you've been well anyway. I dropped my fascination with Sumerian mythology, if you still remember that phase lol. Though to be honest, I'm more convinced than ever that we have lost a significant chunk of our human history. I think we are only just beginning to scratch the surface with sites like Gobekli Tepe.
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: Wolfenz
Funny no one mentions this ,,
You See this ??
Thats part of the Gornaya Shoria megaliths in Siberia
yet It Looks So much Like this
Baalbek
Because the first photo is not from Gornaya Shoria. It's from Baalbek.
There are a great many photos of megalithic construction on the internet that are claimed to be at Gornaya Shoria, but aren't. Many are from Baalbek. A few are from Israel.
Harte
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger
Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger
Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.
My thought too. How could the ancients, with their primitive tools compared to today, have constructed a sledge that would hold 3,000 tons, when to transport a 340 ton boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter for the job.
-MM
originally posted by: xstealth
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: xstealth
All it would take is giant men to move a rock like that.
And I'm not kidding either.
There were giants in the earth in those days - Gen 6:4
No there wasn't. Giants did not exist you could have someone taller.
You can't say as a fact there wasn't.
I have the oldest historical document in the world claiming they existed.
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger
Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.
My thought too. How could the ancients, with their primitive tools compared to today, have constructed a sledge that would hold 3,000 tons, when to transport a 340 ton boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter for the job.
-MM
No ancient structures contain a stone anywhere near 3,000 tons so the question is beside the point.
800 tons isn't too much for a sledge if the runners are a foot or two square in cross-section, depending of course on the type of wood used (balsa won't work nor will palm trees, for example.)
If it had been acceptable to drag your boulder down the highway, no custom-built transporter would have been required.
Harte
originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Heavy greased Wooden skids or rollers and Large Cattle (Aurochs or water buffalo) or Elephants to move them. Why does everything need to be moved by manpower according to archaeologist. It makes more sense to use the heavy haulage of the times and that was large animals Like Aurochs and Elephants.
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger
Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.
My thought too. How could the ancients, with their primitive tools compared to today, have constructed a sledge that would hold 3,000 tons, when to transport a 340 ton boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter for the job.
-MM
No ancient structures contain a stone anywhere near 3,000 tons so the question is beside the point.
800 tons isn't too much for a sledge if the runners are a foot or two square in cross-section, depending of course on the type of wood used (balsa won't work nor will palm trees, for example.)
If it had been acceptable to drag your boulder down the highway, no custom-built transporter would have been required.
Harte
So, according to your logic, the engineers that moved the 340 ton boulder in 2012 obviously should have used a sled? And that a sled would have been cheaper and better than the 176-wheel transporter they had made for the hauling? If so, then you should give them a call, as they'll obviously hire you as a consultant for their next megalithic hauling job ...
-MM