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.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 191
39
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Apples & Oranges I am afraid .

Aren't we talking about ropes and pulleys ?




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm talking about the fact that your input on this subject involves the use of flat asphalt to transport on. Compare this to the ground in Egypt.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Apples & Oranges I am afraid .

Aren't we talking about ropes and pulleys ?
You said:


Originally posted by 23432
With todays commercial heavy load transporting technology , we can carry about 80 to 100 tons .

We can lift upto 200 tons with moderns cranes .
I was responding to that. I thought you were talking about "todays commercial heavy load transporting technology" and "moderns cranes". Is that what you were talking about? Because that's what you said. Did I demonstrate that's false with the 1200 ton load being moved with modern cranes and commercial heavy load transporting technology?

As for moving heavy stones, they were able to push the stone with an index finger in this stonehenge project:

Stonehenge builders 'used ball bearings to move giant slabs of stone into position'


'The true test was when a colleague used his index finger to move me forward - a mere push and the slabs and I shot forward.

'This proved the balls could move large heavy objects and could be a viable explanation of how giant stones were moved.'



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm talking about the fact that your input on this subject involves the use of flat asphalt to transport on. Compare this to the ground in Egypt.
The ground in Egypt looks pretty flat to me, and moreover the reason I asked about the terrain is that the granite was moved a significant distance on water, which isn't really terrain at all.

You can see the pyramids and the nile river in this view from space, they are practically right on the water and if they really wanted to they could have even made canals from the river to the pyramid site to have that much less land to traverse.

farm5.static.flickr.com...


The Nile River flowing through Egypt past the pyramids of Giza up to Cairo...


en.wikipedia.org...

Stonehenge, England. Largest stones over 40 tons were moved 18 miles (29 km), smaller bluestones up to 5 tons were moved 130 miles (210 km).

Great Pyramid of Giza, Egypt. Largest slabs on burial chamber, 80 tons. The granite was transported 580 miles (930 km) from Aswan by barge on the Nile river.


They both sound pretty easy...with stonehenge, push it with your index finger and it moves.

In Egypt, I'm sure you could also push the barge with your index finger and it would move. It doesn't sound hard at all. As for the other stone, it was quarried pretty close to the pyramid and you really haven't explained any reason why the terrain would be difficult over such a short distance.

We have equipment to move things over roads that we have. The Egyptians had methods to move things over the surfaces they had available. a sled would work with enough people and/or animals pulling the sled for a short distance. And sure ropes would work for this, why not? The ground is flat...I don't see the problem and you really haven't articulated any problem with the terrain.

Moreover people have already proven they had no problem moving pyramid stones without modern equipment:

www.pbs.org...

MARK LEHNER: And you think this is do-able in three weeks? You're going to do this by ancient Egyptian methods? Are you going to be faithful to the way the ancient Egyptians do it, or are you going to come in here with a backhoe and a loader and a forklift?

ROGER HOPKINS: Well, let's put it this way. I'll be as—probably—as faithful as I can be, given that I only have three weeks here........

MARK LEHNER: Well, I think it's good just to see that it works, because this is another case where hands-on, trial archaeology I think really proves some points. Because even the men, even the experienced masons here, were saying vehemently that this isn't going to work, and they were almost angry and irritated about it. And lo and behold, it got off the rollers....

NARRATOR: By now, everyone was an expert on moving blocks, and there was much debate on the best method for putting the final pyramid stone in place. Once Ahmed's men got the block in motion, it quickly became clear that there could be no turning back...

NARRATOR: With fewer than two hundred blocks, compared to Khufu's more than two million, Roger's pyramid would have no difficulty sitting on the missing top of the Great Pyramid. And although the Great Pyramid is twenty-seven times taller, the achievement of Roger and his crew has strengthened Mark's understanding of the ancient techniques that permitted Khufu's builders to raise his great monument in less than thirty years. But that does not mean that all the mysteries have been solved.

MARK LEHNER: Well, I don't think there are any huge mysteries about the nuts and bolts of how they made a pyramid. I think more the mystery is the motivation behind the people. What caused them to do this all of a sudden? For the first time in history, they gathered, not hundreds or even thousands, but probably tens of thousands of people in one place at one time to do this project. What motivated them to do that? That's the real mystery.
According to the guy who actually moved the blocks without modern equipment, Mark Lehner, how they moved the blocks isn't a mystery.

The mystery to him is why they built it.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432


With todays commercial heavy load transporting technology , we can carry about 80 to 100 tons .

We can lift upto 200 tons with moderns cranes .


You are out by a factor of 100



Some of the stones in Egypt are estimated to be in excess of 500 tons in weight .

Still puzzles me as to how they did it .



That is your problem - and not much to do with reality.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I've done my homework; you haven't.


Now that's a really severe delusion.

Earlier in this thread (on the subject of the Pyramids, that is featured on recent pages as well) you had clearly shown that you had zero, zelch, nada knowledge about engineering, its evolution and its current capabilities. Every time I ask you to crack open a physics book, you refuse and typically say "it's mainstream", although it never hurts anyone to actually know what they are arguing against. You are trying to debunk stuff that you never had any idea about what it is, and that condition of mind can't be called healthy by any measure. It's not very different from saying that Pre-Raphaelites were all cr@p, without seeing a single painting by any of them. Just as sick.

I offered you information of where you can buy an electric test kit for the price of a sixpack. Using these instruments, it should be trivial to just go and check whether Rodin's predictions are true or false. Anyone with true interest in the subject and who so staunchly proclaims Rodin's virtues would simply run run run and try to be the first to test these divine proclamations with their own hands, thus touching "the fingerprint of God". True to your deeply hypocritical nature, you declined to spend mere $6 for an encounter with divinity.

No Mary, you never did any homework and as a result remain in your rather primitive, backward and unenviable condition.

edit on 9-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
once again, i'll post this for everyone here to consider when we are discussing the Great Pyramid and the phenomena of ANY Pyramidal shape...

New Russian Pyramid Research


Summarizing we may infer that the inerton field, a new physical field, which as fundamental as the electromagnetic one may well have been known by the architects of the Great Pyramid. They built the Great Pyramid as the House that was saturated with inerton waves.


coming from a "team" of highly credible scientists....keep that in mind.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


To summarize:
In order to "think outside the box" you need to know what's in the box.

Is that the idea?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
once again, i'll post this for everyone here to consider when we are discussing the Great Pyramid and the phenomena of ANY Pyramidal shape...

New Russian Pyramid Research
coming from a "team" of highly credible scientists....keep that in mind.
I looked at that..it doesn't look scientific to me. For example, if they are evaluating the special properties of a pyramid, what did they use for a control? A cube? I don't see that they even used a control at all and therefore I can't tell if the same results or different results would have been achieved in a cube versus a pyramid, versus any other shape of enclosure.

But if you think they are credible scientists, surely you have a link to a peer reviewed scientific paper on this topic instead of just a website link?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


this is not always true. you can find and define the "limits" of something without defining what's "inside" that limit. you can define something's boundaries without defining what makes "it".

in this case you can define the "walls" of the box without defining what's "inside" "the box".

for instance, it's easy to begin to put a puzzle together by only using and connecting the perimeter pieces. because you know that those "pieces" are along the boundary, then you know those pieces are "the fringe"/the outermost of what is considered "it".

once you define the entire boundary of something, you get a full spectrum sense of what is considered "not it", thus you also realize what "it" is.
edit on 2/9/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Did ancient Egyptians have the ability to move stones weighing in excess of 500 tons with ropes and pulleys ?



Such an entertaining thread indeed .



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 

When we talk about specifics it's easier to relate. We could talk about electromagnetic measurements of Rodin's coil but not everyone has that test equipment. Let's look at an even simpler example...crane capacity.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Every time I ask you to crack open a physics book, you refuse and typically say "it's mainstream", although it never hurts anyone to actually know what they are arguing against.
Good point but reading physics books is hard...I only asked Mary to just look at a website, which was designed to present the information on the opposite side of the argument to laypeople, and Mary wouldn't even look at that.

This in a nutshell, is Mary's problem...she doesn't know what she's arguing against because she doesn't even consider those sources in her research.

In contrast, I've looked at the links Mary has posted and I know you have too.

When "Aunt Martha's new age pyramid power crystal links" website or whatever source Mary is using prompts her to ask:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
So you believe our technology today could transport 200+ tons?
and 23432 to say:


Originally posted by 23432
We can lift upto 200 tons with moderns cranes.

Even the most basic research would have shown that we can lift over 200 tons with modern cranes. But I guess if it's from mainstream sources, she doesn't trust it, though I imagine she could go and personally look at cranes not that far from her that could lift well over 200 tons if she was motivated to look for herself.

In this case, "Thinking outside the box" to come up with ancient or secret technologies that could have been used to move large stones does indeed require knowing what is inside the box, before you can think outside it.



edit on 9-2-2012 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


hm, alright...what does any of that have to do with me or what I have personally said?

refer to my last post for my "out of the box" view of your views on "the box".



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 

The difference is, I used specific examples from this thread, and you didn't.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 

The difference is, I used specific examples from this thread, and you didn't.


haha alright then, let it be seen here that you do not consider "outside links" that are relevant to the discussion at-hand...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
haha alright then, let it be seen here that you do not consider "outside links" that are relevant to the discussion at-hand...
What?

You didn't post any links.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Listen carefully
EVERY THEORY HAS AN END.
No theory is all encumbering

Your examples meant to show how 'real' you are, are easily proven because the fundamentals behind them will not end shortly.

Don't brush aside obvious things as unimportant. You are not yet that smart.

Speculative theories reach as far as they can, grasping at the unknown.

We are discussing theories here.

What you've said about a falling apple proves my point. It only falls that way here, on earth.

You will never find a theory that is always right all of the time, except...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
once again, i'll post this for everyone here to consider when we are discussing the Great Pyramid and the phenomena of ANY Pyramidal shape...

New Russian Pyramid Research


Since "Russian" features prominently in this post, I invoke the privilege of commenting on the issue, since I'm 100% pure blood Russian, speak the language and have received what is apparently a kick-ass defense industry grade education in my Motherland.

I've read articles in Russian about those plastic pyramids and whatever para-research they generated and I never found anything that's worth of serious consideration. I leave alone the fact that the Golod pyramids are of completely different proportions than the Egyptian structures.

I traveled to various regions of the country and was exposed to temperatures as low as -50C at one time and let me tell you being there sucks rabbit's ass. It's -58F. Feels like being in space.

That said, temperatures of -38C are extremely unusual in most of central Russia and it's even more unusual that they would persist for a long time. I take it with a huge grain of salt that the water was sitting at -38C for a long period of time, I mean I spent my childhood in the woods on cross country skis and I know my country. I know what temps are and how they stay.

And, consider the issue in the paper where they say they had examined water which supposedly didn't freeze solid when it was places inside the Golod's pyramids but which did freeze when the vessels was knocked on.

There is a lot going on here. It's not uncommon for phase transition to be delayed until there is a crystallization or evaporation point being formed. It happened to me 100 times when I microwave water and then drop a teabag into the mug, and it basically blows up, because it boils too fast, with bubbles forming on irregularities of the paper bag -- and the water was ABOVE the boiling point when in the microwave.

Now, freezing follows the same logic. First off, I don't believe that water rested at -38C for a long time. That's an unstable equilibrium phase. Then when a stimulus is introduced, like knocking on the vessel, which causes gradient of density, the phase transition takes place.

So basically, the "paper" is a lot a-do about nothing. All I read in the Russian sources ultimately points to same.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Yes I was well aware of supercooling which is why I said I see nothing special about the pyramid shape. It can happen in a cube too. Or it can happen in an ordinary garage as shown in this video:

quadpoint.org...


What does this have to do with pyramids? Absolutely nothing. Does this guy's garage have mystical powers? No.

Is it kind of cool? Yes, but real science is like that. You don't have to make up BS about pyramids to see cool stuff like this in real science, which can happen in garages and kitchens.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Whoa! I've seen something like this maybe once, but I've seen superheated liquids more oftten -- as I said, when a teacup goes, when a teabag is placed in superheated water.

But the vid you linked to is way cool. One thing -- I don't see a pyramid in it.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 188  189  190    192  193  194 >>

log in

join