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.

 

Massive structures and an Ancient Atmosphere

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sixswornsermon
 


Me too, i wish i got paid to research rather than paid to work an office drone job but choose to reseach instead of work.
Either way, wish I was a SMRTER.




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I don't think gravity fluctuating is a viable possibility.
Maybe with hirer O2 levels, the humans where of greater size and strength?
I still think that the scientific community don't give enough credit for human ingenuity.
It think that ancient people had a better grasp of things then what they are giving credit for.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I think that if gravity changed there would be proof.

I would imagine after say a flood in these times the way the particles in the water settled out would show as the tendancy for heavy particles to settle first would be less pronounced in times of weaker gravity than durig times of stronger gravity The distances volcanic ash spread or even the amount of rainfall as the particles would need to be a lot bigger before they fell in the time the gravity was weak.

So although the op is thinking out of the box I think it i very unlikely.

We will just have to accept the ancients knew something or someone we do not.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by srbouska
 


Thank You for the book tip sir. Lucky that my line of work has plenty of spare time so will hopefully read in a week or so and post here my thoughts.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by srbouska
 


Hey don't knock the office drone jobs.

At least we got time for ATS!


edit on 26-1-2011 by sixswornsermon because: oops

edit on 26-1-2011 by sixswornsermon because: can't spell

edit on 26-1-2011 by sixswornsermon because: dur



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
Look at that beauty... no human on earth or machines can lift and carve this stone


That is simply not true.

Harte



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Would you care to go on? The craving could be done yes but the lifting of the stone in one go, i dont no, am not aware of any machines that could transport this size/weight of cargo, but maybe am wrong,

I think it was already there and craved on the spot. This was one of the first pics in chariot of the gods book and what really caught my attention on how this theroy could actually be true.

Drustew



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by srbouska
 



Excellent theory. There some people who believe the earth is expanding "Expanding earth theory" and their is people who believe in that theory who also believe that the earth's gravity was much less then(millions of years ago) allowing for mega fauna, plants and other species such as the dinosaur. These people have proven that a dinosaur could not live on todays earth due to increased gravity. No dinosaur heart can pump blood to that height unless it was a horizontal animal like a crocodile. Giraffes are said to be the max height an animal can grow before their hearts fail.


My book outlines the evidence that dinosaurs lived on a Reduced Gravity Earth and how this relates to an Increasing Mass Expanding Earth ...

Have you ever wondered - Why were dinosaurs so big?

In 1987 I realized my engineering knowledge of scale effects on structures revealed a startling answer to the mystery of the dinosaurs’ massive size. Dinosaurs could never grow gigantic unless something dramatic had changed. Their bones, muscles and ligaments were too weak.

There was one answer that solved the dinosaurs’ large scale - a reduced gravity. A Reduced Gravity Earth would reduce the weight of all life, so the scale of all life could increase. A reduced gravity explains the dinosaurs' large size.
www.dinox.org...


As far as the stones...... Is it possible that maybe in our past there has been sporadic gravity fluctuations that could of lasted days, weeks, years, centuries, etc. allowing for some cultures to 'move mountains' so to speak?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Just a thought. Wouldnt a weaker gravity mean mean the moon would move further away if not leave earth orbit altogether?

Even if it moved further out its stabilising effect on the earth would be less causing huge problems?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Gravity: a natural phenomenon in which objects with mass attract one another.

Being a byproduct of mass, means that for the earth to have had less gravity, it would have had to be less massive. Aside from mass accretion due to foreign body impacts, the Earth would have had to have taken on more mass in a (relatively) short period of time, without any evidence of having done so on either the planet itself or rather via other telltale signs throughout our local system. This seems like a stretch, and we're left trying to making something fit that doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor.

Furthermore, most of the conjecture regarding the infeasibility of ancient megalithic structures is our current inability to replicate (move) said structures with our current technology. This statement is wrong on many levels. First, just because we lack specialized equipment for testing our ability to erect an inneficient and unnencecary material type does not imply that we can't or that our technology couldn't. If 100ton stone blocks became the construction material dejour of the ultra-rich, you can bet you'd start seeing specialized equipment that could handle those stresses. For the rest of us "little people", we'll just have to make due with cheaper stronger lighter steel and assorted other construction materials.

Lastly, remember that many of these reports have exhaggerated or often misleading information. For example, I remember an individual claiming that the Puma Punka stones made of diorite (listed as one of the hardest natural materials next to diamonds) would have been impossible to cut so precicely and deeply with any ancient tools. This is of course factualy false. Diorite can be worked with a variety of tools (to varying degrees of efficiency/success), and there are a multitude of diorite artifacts and other structures from throughout history to demonstrate this.

In summation, we see these amazing structures and perhaps because of our misconceptions of primitive man, we assume he was in fact primitive. It is far less of a rational leap to image ancient humans being every bit as ingenious and intelligent as we are today (and therefore able to put to use that intelligence) to create megalithic structures. Furthermore, because of technology we think in a much shorter timescale, wherebye we look at these structures and think, 'it would have taken these people hundreds of years to move these stones', so there must have been alien spaceships with tractor beams to move them all in a month's time. In reality, it probably took many generations (like it did for several of the great pyramids), of hard labor, ingenious engineering, and cooperation amongst huge groups of people to accomplish these amazing feats.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


the moon is constantly getting further away



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I really like the less gravity theory, mixed with giants. Who could use a block this big to build? A giant. A few nights ago I was listening to coast to coast am and a guy was going on about a red-head giant in afghanistan, capture by spec ops. But I also believe a theory along the lines that we have had advanced civilization thousands if not millions of years ago. Like you would never find a human in the crateceous period of fossils along with a dinosaur right? But google that one and you will probably find an article about that!!
So say thats true, humans have been around for millions of years, technology and civilization go through cycles, human's get smaller, lose their technology, once twice maybe four times. The only thing left from them are these megalithic structures around the world, like the pyramids.

What scares me about this line of thought, is that maybe the cycle is about due to repeat again. And maybe that's why the government is going crazy building underground facilities. So the question is what completes the cycle, i.e. nuclear holocaust, asteroid from outer-space, pole shift/flooding, extermination at the hands of evil aliens(favorite).



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by srbouska
There’s talk that some of the structures that were created thousands of years ago were massive insize and its unexpected for humans to be able to organize such massive structures let alone be able to lift the boulders and place them where they are.


I think it's unexpected only if you haven't been reading about the civilizations and about the technology. For instance, in Egypt, they regularly lifted multi-ton stones to form the roofs of temples. Roman engineers were the ones who built Baalbek and regularly moved (with their engines) multiple ton stones, lifting them up in the air and placing them on structures. So did the Greeks.





“Garcilaso also reported something else interesting. In his Royal Commentaries of the Incas he gave an account of how, in historical times, an Inca king had tried to emulate the achievements of his predecessors
who had built Sacsayhuaman

So they weren’t even able to replicate one single rock structure because of the extent of work but there’s sites around the world where you see them being lugged up mountain ranges and stacked as if they are Mickey mouse building blocks.


Remember that Garcilaso (I looked him up in Wikipedia) is repeating the tales of his ancestors. Like all ancestral tales, it doesn't say which king or add any details. If you look at the blocks, they're around the same size as all the other stonework they moved up and around the mountains. And the blocks weren't necessarily moved UP. There's the same kinds of stone all around the mountain. They could have been moved ACROSS... or even DOWN.


So my thought is, could it be possible that in ancient days we had less gravity in our atmosphere?


No. Gravity has nothing to do with atmosphere. It does with the density of the planet. We have ice cores and rocks that tell about the deep history of the planet, and the gravity has pretty much not changed. Atmosphere has changed lots, but not that much during the time of the humans.


Not substantially less but just enough to change something that’s one ton to feel like something that’s ¾ of a ton.

That would be "substantially less".


My reasoning for this is that we have ancient civilizations and buildings miles below the sea level.

Hundreds of feet, yes. Miles, no.


Considering there was a massive flood ( recorded umpteen times in many different references)

There was no global flood, and many of the references occurred AFTER Christian missionaries came to the area.


that if it’s possible that our new sea level is higher than previous.

Sea levels have changed throughout the history of the world. The place where the ocean starts is farther inland now than it was in the depths of the last ice age, 24,000 years ago.


Would it not than mean that our atmosphere could have possible had lesser gravity therefore making it easier to carry massive rock structures up mountains?

No. Earth had the same mass. The water was simply sitting around in massive ice sheets.


edit on 26-1-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Ahem, actually the city off of SW cuba is about 5000 feet down..thats one mile nearly...
The lower land surfaces have been discussed, the cities are there to this day...much was covered by water since.
The Chances that ton sizes even multi ton size were handled by roman etc engineers are obvious, but these are HUNDREDS OF TONS! thats not really in the same baabeack at all.(forgive the pun)
There is a limit to what ropes made from hemp, or hide, and wooden frames or cranes cna actaually pick up.
The story best describing the pyramid construction is the rocking chair runner shaaped planks which were fitted to the square stones to make a round part which was easily rolled up a ramp to be put in place.
as far as lifting these g=huge blocks that weigh in the hundred or more ton range, i dont think so.......



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by srbouska
 


Large structures fits, if you look at Biblical writings. In the pre-flood days, there were Nephilim, giants. Most likely, a very different atmosphere as well, with more oxygen than we have now, that is shown to make things grow larger. Your idea fits that model to a point.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Ahem, actually the city off of SW cuba is about 5000 feet down..thats one mile nearly...
The lower land surfaces have been discussed, the cities are there to this day...much was covered by water since.

In fact, there exists no evidence of any city at all down there. At least, not right now.

Originally posted by stirlingThe Chances that ton sizes even multi ton size were handled by roman etc engineers are obvious, but these are HUNDREDS OF TONS! thats not really in the same baabeack at all.(forgive the pun)


That's not even the largest stone ever moved by man.
The stone at the above link was moved by hand. No modern cranes existed in 1768.

Harte



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Except that, the "bible" is a load of.....myths, fables, some allegories all swirled together with a smattering of (very exagerrated) history:


.... if you look at Biblical writings.



There was no such thing as you seem to refer, here...(the "Noah flood"):


In the pre-flood days....


So, therefore, there were NO such thiings as---:


,,,there were Nephilim, giants.


Honestly, it is amazing what people will take, at face value, with ZERO evidence of any sort.



Most likely, a very different atmosphere as well....


There are numerous ice core samples, from all over the North and South poles, that have REAL science that do not indicate any such thing...not in HUMAN history.


... with more oxygen than we have now, that is shown to make things grow larger.


"more oxygen" makes things "grow larger"? There are theories, at least regarding insects. Might want to re-check those 'sources'......oh, nevermind. The atmosphere wasn't different, anyhow....in HUMAN history. You have to go back hundreds of millions of years to find a situation when the Earth's atmosphere had a substantially higher percentage of oxygen.....

www.livescience.com...


Roughly 300 million years ago, giant insects scuttled around and fluttered over the planet, with dragonflies bearing wingspans comparable to hawks at two-and-a-half feet. Back then, oxygen made up 35 percent of the air, compared to the 21 percent we breathe now.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by colin42
 


the moon is constantly getting further away


Yep but the giveaway is the word 'constantly' moving away



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sixswornsermon
 


I think you mean less gravity = less mass... Yeah?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Except that, the "bible" is a load of.....myths, fables, some allegories all swirled together with a smattering of (very exagerrated) history:

There was no such thing as you seem to refer, here...(the "Noah flood"):

So, therefore, there were NO such thiings as---:

Honestly, it is amazing what people will take, at face value, with ZERO evidence of any sort.


There is plenty of evidence of a global flood. There have been studies done showing that things grow larger in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. There is evidence of giant people, too. You make a lot of assumptions, because you choose not to believe evidence that doesn't fit your worldview. However, I was answering the OP, not you, and am not going to participate in hijacking the thread for your issues. We can, if you wish, discuss those in another thread.







 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join