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.

 

Lebanon blocks can't have been transported by ropes, my math proves it!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I did the math's on the 2,000 tons Lebanon stones today, and the result is just mind-boggeling.

Todays modern syntetic ropes have a breaking limit of 11 tons for a 1" (2,54 cm) rope, the materials that they had back when the Lebanon stones was made were more primitive, they probally used hemp or cotton for their ropes. But even if they had our modern nylon ropes they can't realistically have been able to transport them. For a 2,000 ton stone block to be moved with even a modern nylon rope it would have to have been at least 182" (4.62 meters) in diameter:

2,000 tons / 11 tons per inch = 182 inches

Now lets calculate the weight of just one meter of this rope:

(4.62 m / 2)^2 * PI = 18 m3

Nylon fibre has a density of 1,140kg/m3, so then we get:

18 m3 * 1,140 kg/m3 = 20,520 kg

So this means that just one meter of this rope would weigh over 20 tons! When archolologiest talk about the ancient transporting huge blocks they usually say that they used X thousands of slaves, but you cant stack people close enough together to pull this off, it's impossible just because of the share weight of the rope. Even if you made three people share each meter of rope, giving them 33 cm of space each, they would have to carry almost 7 tons of rope each, and then they would have to be part of pulling the 2,000 ton block in addition to that.

This math was applied with modern day nylon ropes, which is much stronger that the hemp and cotton ropes of the past, a hemp or cotton rope would have to be even ticker and even heavier.

I used this table:
Young's modulus (GPa) | Density (kg/m3) | Strength(MPa)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton 7.9 1,540 225
Hemp 32 1,490 300
Bulk Polyester 2.9 1,300 50
Bulk Nylon 2.5 1,090 63
Carbon Fibre 300 1,770 3,430
Aramid Fibre 124 1,450 3,930
Polyester Fibre 13.2 1,390 784
Nylon Fibre 3.9 1,140 616
Alloy Steel 210 7,800 1,330



[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
You're right. There have been technologically advanced civilizations on this planet in the distant past, but people are too egotistical to believe it. They do not realize the proof is buried underneath three thousand feet of sediments which have accumulated since that time. They expect everything to be right in front of them on their television screen. Not to mention the fact that conventional science aided by the government disposes of ancient artifacts when they are brought to light.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
All this means is that they probably didn't use a single gigantic peice of rope.

They could've moved it along sledges or logs and used levels to muscle it along, or they could've produced the blocks from rock in situ.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972
This math was applied with modern day nylon ropes, which is much stronger that the hemp and cotton ropes of the past, a hemp or cotton rope would have to be even ticker and even heavier.
[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]


Actually you'd be wrong there...

Last week BBC 2 did a show on the Mayan's and it included a piece on their rope bridges. They used a technique of twisting the rope around itself it's hard to explain but it wasn't much weaker than modern nylon the way in which it was made.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Last week BBC 2 did a show on the Mayan's and it included a piece on their rope bridges. They used a technique of twisting the rope around itself it's hard to explain but it wasn't much weaker than modern nylon the way in which it was made.


The math is based on the strength of a single nylon fibre, no matter how you twist a rope, the fibers will not get any stronger, so I would consider this proof from BBC 2 not conclusive at best.


[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
exellent post...(more of these are needed.............)

puts the whole 'slave labor' thing into a different light. try this one too....i'm not gunna do the math for you...but, how much area would 1,2 5, 10 thousand people cover?? even if they had some type of harness to attached to the main 'rope', so they wouldn't be using there arms to pull-which requires more space, (kids, you can try that one at home
) each person would require at least 3-square feet of room. hmmmmmmmmmmmm thats alot of space.

how big would a 'lever' have to be in order to more it?
how many people would you need to move the 'lever'?
could you place that many people in the 'lever' area?

funny...untill now i never really thought about it in those terms. come to think about, i don't recall anybody addressing this issue......

hmm like i said, it sorta puts the whole 'slave labor' thing into a different light



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972

Originally posted by Odium
Last week BBC 2 did a show on the Mayan's and it included a piece on their rope bridges. They used a technique of twisting the rope around itself it's hard to explain but it wasn't much weaker than modern nylon the way in which it was made.


The math is based on the strength of a single nylon fibre, no matter how you twist a rope, the fibers will not get any stronger, so I would consider this proof from BBC 2 not conclusive at best.


[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]


MIT did the math's, so I take their word on the ability to strength material by twisting it over yours. I doubt Massachusetts Institute of Technology would get something so simple wrong especailly when the University placed their reputation on the line by saying that by being built this way it was as strong as modern fibers. It would be suicide to do that for any University.

I also need to write up the notes I took from it and post it on a site, they gave a great new theory on how the Mayan Temples fitted so well together and were able to lift large blockes [same size as the ones used] just using ropes and pullies. Although they didn't scale up to the largest blockes.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972
I did the math's on the 2,000 tons Lebanon stones today, and the result is just mind-boggeling.

Todays modern syntetic ropes have a breaking limit of 11 tons for a 1" (2,54 cm) rope, the materials that they had back when the Lebanon stones was made were more primitive, they probally used hemp or cotton for their ropes. But even if they had our modern nylon ropes they can't realistically have been able to transport them. For a 2,000 ton stone block to be moved with even a modern nylon rope it would have to have been at least 182" (4.62 meters) in diameter:

2,000 tons / 11 tons per inch = 182 inches



ANG,
An ambitious post, but have you considered the following?

Maybe they used 200 ropes with a diameter of 1 in. each.

The stones may have been on sledges or rollers.

Your calculations are only good for the stress on a rope that is used to suspend one of these stones, not to move it.

Harte



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
All this means is that they probably didn't use a single gigantic peice of rope.


To pull the block I assume they would make a hurse of some kind. Lets say at any time each person pulls 100 kg each, then you would need 20,000 people to pull the block. I would say that a person would aquire atleast 1/4 m2 personal space. This means that 5,000 m2 of space is needed in front of the block. I would assume that these people would be inside a triangle no wider than 45 degrees in front of the block in order to pull the block in the same direction, a greater angle and energy would be wasted pulling the rock to either side. Lets say 55 people share each rope, then we need 181 ropes, the first row would consist of 181 people, thus being 45 m wide. It could work, suggested image below.




Originally posted by Nygdan
They could've moved it along sledges or logs and used levels to muscle it along, or they could've produced the blocks from rock in situ.


This is easy to dis-proof for the simple reason that there would be limited room to hook the leavers (block is 21.36 meters in length, 4.33 meters in height, and 4.60 m in width).

[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
MIT did the math's, so I take their word on the ability to strength material by twisting it over yours.


Sounds like magic to me that the fibers would be stronger just cause they wrapped the rope a certain way. A rope can be made stronger by diffrent ways of wrapping it, but it would probably increase its mass.



[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
when the goal is to move a heavy block, and not suspend it from something.

See, If I want to pick the block up, then I must wrestle the whole 2000 tons (assuming that number is right, which I would like referenced, please)

But I don't want to pick it up, I just want to scoot it.

At that point, the operative factor is coefficient of friction

Now, I can push my pickup down the road (very slowly), by hand WITH NO ROPE AT ALL as long as the transmission's in neutral. Why, because the axles are on bearings, which lower that co-ef of friction for me. It only takes a hundred pounds of force to move the pickup on level ground once you reduce friction enough.

So instead of asking about ropes. Let's look for the following:
pulleys
wheels
tires
a smoothed roadsurface
windpower (erecting obelisks with kites! experimental, never proven)
lubricants - like olive oil or sheeps' fat??


So again, that's drag and friction that restrain monument builders of all ages.


Sheesh!

To paraphrase Joan Baez,

"Where have all the civil engineers gone, long time passing?"



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
WHY are you looing at the block's weight


You are absolutely right, but the block is also lifted 20 feet up, in addition to beeing dragged from i stone mine located 1 km away.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

[edit on 29-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Well, a small child can push her grandmother up that high, if she has a wheelchair ramp.

And the ancients DID build a lot of ramps. The Romans were so proud of the 2 mile long ramp they built to besiege Masada, that they left it as a momument to themselves. And they just had slaves carrying stones in wicker baskets. Not even any wheels, except on their seige tower.

I wish you could post some info on this object. I love stuff like this, and I suppose I missed whatever program you were watching.

I'm not trying to dash anyones hopes for "ancient UFO contacts" or anything else.

But unless you've tried it, you really have no idea what can be accomplished with the application of human willpower and a few simple tools.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

I wish you could post some info on this object. I love stuff like this, and I suppose I missed whatever program you were watching.



Look here:
Lebanon's Baalbek's Temple World Heritage Site



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
They didn't use ropes. Check this outwww.theforgottentechnology.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Well, it was built in historic times, by the Roman government which did have unprecedented access to slaves AND tools, including animal powered cranes and wheeled vehicles, and even underwater cement.

Their greatest tool, undoubtedly, was organization.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Well, it was built in historic times, by the Roman government which did have unprecedented access to slaves AND tools, including animal powered cranes and wheeled vehicles, and even underwater cement.

Their greatest tool, undoubtedly, was organization.



The Romans build on the ruins of atleast two older temples. The oldest ruins was not built by the romans, but by a race called the Giants in ancient writings by request of a Lebanon King.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
You're right. There have been technologically advanced civilizations on this planet in the distant past, but people are too egotistical to believe it. They do not realize the proof is buried underneath three thousand feet of sediments which have accumulated since that time. They expect everything to be right in front of them on their television screen. Not to mention the fact that conventional science aided by the government disposes of ancient artifacts when they are brought to light.


You are quite right on this one. There indeed have been more intellegent races of life forms here on the earth if only those stuck-up proffesors would come down from their self induced delusions of thinking they know every damn thing there is to know. If you really want to be committed to finding out who and what they were, you need to grab a shovel and start looking in the right places. I agree the oceans and seas would be prime real estate to start off on. Also the the Poles would ideal since I feel that we in the past have gone through several Pole reversals. Just my opinion.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
You've made a few bad assumptions, as others have pointed out.

* many, many ropes. You can suspend a human being on a web of just cotton sewing thread if you use enough threads.
* stone rolled on rollers or slid on mud. There's some evidence that the mud was made by pouring milk. Sledge technology for transport is ... immeasureably old.
* pulled by animals; not men. Oxen had been domesticated by then and were common farm animals. Two oxen can pull a one ton object:
www.fryeburgfair.com...

With modern technoogy, a 4kg force can move a 200 kg item:
www.hse.gov.uk...

Now, ancient technology wasn't THAT efficient, but if it took up to 40kg to move a 200kg load, you can see that it's not going to take that many plough oxen conscriopted from the local farmers to pull that stone and levers to prod it to where they want.

And earthen ramps. They get the oxen to haul the dirt, too.

There's pictures in Egyptian temples and tombs well over 3,000 years old that show oxen being used to pull plows.

The technique to hook a number of animals in a team is old, too.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH

You are quite right on this one. There indeed have been more intellegent races of life forms here on the earth if only those stuck-up proffesors would come down from their self induced delusions of thinking they know every damn thing there is to know. If you really want to be committed to finding out who and what they were, you need to grab a shovel and start looking in the right places. I agree the oceans and seas would be prime real estate to start off on. Also the the Poles would ideal since I feel that we in the past have gone through several Pole reversals. Just my opinion.


Well, I HAVE done a fair amount of archaeology, some of it in Lebanon, btw. And if you start digging with a shovel, you'll destroy more information than you unearth. What makes you think that scientists are stuck up? When new discoveries have been made, it was archaeologists who rushed to verify them.

Archaeology is based on science. It procedes by designing theories and models, then testing them against results in the field. I'll give you an example. One of the leading authorities on North American prehistory was asked about the possibility of contact between European Neanderthals and people from the Clovis culture in the Desert Southwest (USA). His answer was along the lines of: "currently, the evidence we have doesn't support the conclusion."

Notice, he didn't say "No, that's impossible." Nor did he say the evidence doesn't exist. He said only that the stuff we recognize as evidence doesn't support that idea. He never said it wasn't true---merely that we cannot prove it.

And archaeology, when it is science, is not about what you believe. It's about what you can prove.


For instance, since I have left the field of professional archaeology, I have come to the hypothesis that there was a catastrophic flood in the Middle East about 10,000 BC, that it eradicated evidence of a prior civilization in what is now the black sea, and that the Egyptian sphinx may pre-date known civilization.

Notice that I didn't say I believe it. But it's I hypothesis that I'm trying in my spare time to compare with the known evidence. It excites me.

Does that seem "stuck up" to you? It is no more than what many archaeological "professors" are doing.

You refer to an entire field as "stuck up;" how much investigating have you done? Have you been to any of these sites? Have you looked at the ancient manuscripts and artifacts? Or are you merely deciding that someone else is close-minded because they haven't come to the same conclusions you have; even though you just spend a little time looking on the 'net, while those professors you mock spend their careers looking for evidence.

So who's "stuck up" now?






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join