The mystery of the stones at baalbeck and the pregnant stone

[pakeha]

^
Cue to

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Originally Posted by marplots

I think the flaw in that explanation is that no one has been able to accurately date the gravity in that location to Roman times. ...

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I suspect Zeuzz does not read a lot

Reading is my primary way of getting information. Documentaries take too long for information and they tend to be biased, I learn't that very soon in my degree and stuck just to the designated textbooks. I have cognitive dissonance in this area, having read one book from a Roman historian about these, and another from an historian that dated them at 4000-8000BC. In my mind, the Roman historians evidence was circumstantial and the other books evidence was much more empirical when it came to stone-masonry and the potential cultural architects of the stones.

We have not even gotten into that part though, I am still waiting for a) a complete model to be proposed by someone, that has any evidence of it being used b) A model with specifics that I can actually apply physics and maths to to see if it works.

Geemack is still keeping his top secret solution top secret, so it's more a waiting game for his easy 'one minute solution with six people', at this point.

Since another user kindly worked out some data on the properties of wood I was able to expand the model and test it's veracity. But no one else has given a model, just a few words and ideas.

I'm stumped for ideas, the canal idea is redundant the stone is too heavy (I worked it out) and the pig fat idea is a nice idea but has yet to be applied to a mode of transportation for me to factor in what effect the lesser friction would actually have.

[Captain_Swoop]

I gave you an example of the 'Pig Fat' idea It is used to launch Ships.
Examples have been given of stones being moved hundreds of K by Romans.
They moved stones of hundreds of tones by ship.

Roman artifacts have been found under some of the stones at the temple.
Why is it so hard to think that the Romans slid them down the hill?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why is it so hard to think that the Romans slid them down the hill?

Because there was no hill. This has been pointed out previously.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by pakeha

I found it interesting there was a German excavtion at the site which found Roman remains underneath the stones.
It seems to me that helps dating the construction, don't you?
From the first link:

The impression I got from reading this is that they excavated the temple of Jupiter.

Quote:

A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.

That is the roman temple that was built on it's foundations. Unsurprising everything they found was roman. Are there pictures or more details of this expedition?

Quote:

The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.

That would be a brilliant resource, I remember reading excerpts from the second book I read on the subject of the triliton but can't seem to find a translated version online.

Quote:

Read some real literature about the things you are phantasizing about.

I have. The case of the main structure below the temple of Jupiter is not as straightforward as it first appears.

Quote:

suggest you actually read through the text of the second link. It's the transcript of a documentary debunking various programmes of Ancient Aliens, in particular, the Ancient Alien programme dealing with the mystery of the Baalbeck stones. How could you think that isn't relevant to the thread?

I don't want aliens to have anything to do with this thread, and most of the arguments in it are "Aliens could not have warped here" due to x. Which renders it as preaching to the converted.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

and ideas.

I'm stumped for ideas

The people who built it weren't stumped for ideas.

[Zeuzzz]

Hello Mister Earl.

Can you write which one you think most likely, and then we can examine and model it with basic mechanics and physics.

[Mister Earl]

I see no point in listing which I think is best, given you've already dismissed them out of hand. I'm much rather you tell us what you think it was, so we can figure out why you're so dismissive.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Hello Mister Earl.

Can you write which one you think most likely, and then we can examine and model it with basic mechanics and physics.

Why?

[Zeuzzz]

Why not?

I haven't dismissed any out of hand. I have just done the science for two of them and shown them highly unlikely. Other people can either point out where I went wrong in my analysis, or they can propose other novel solutions for people here to examine.

Show where I dismissed one out of hand.

[Mister Earl]

Like the pig lard on stone tracks?

#EDIT: Again I ask what your hypothesis is. I really get the impression that you have your own idea, but have not shared it yet.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Like the pig lard on stone tracks?

That is the one I have yet to look into. The reason I have not commented on it up till now is that we see no evidence of smooth stone tracks between the quarry and the structure, so it seemed unlikely and other possibilities people suggested seemed more likely to address first. Although looking at the historical records for cultures that used this technique and why they used it might be fruitful, as will finding out what the coefficient of friction for stone with fat on it is.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

No **** sherlock.

Seems we are though.

So wooden rollers would work, yes or no?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Why not?

I haven't dismissed any out of hand. I have just done the science for two of them and shown them highly unlikely.

You made a false claim that wooden rollers could not have been used, two of us have shown that they could have.

Agree or disagree.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Show where I dismissed one out of hand.

I seem to recall an unsupported statement about 800 tones crushing wooden rollers.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So if the pregnant woman stone was resting on a solid red cedar platform you get 16.49 psi, but these are roller

Contact surface (top+bottom)
- 10% = 165 psi
- 1% = 1,650 psi
- 0.5% = 3,300 psi
- 0.01% =6,600 psi

So the compressive strength of the cedar will not fail until only 0.01% of the surface is in contact with the ground and the stone.

I may have goofed up somewhere

You just made a mistake on the last one, that would be for 0.25% not 0.01%

In reality though considering geometrical constraints on the rollers, to be practical they would have to be as near to perfectly circular as possible. If they were perfectly circular then your 0.01 number would be more close to the truth, and the psi for that would be 165,000 psi.

[Castro]

Originally Posted by Castro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS5xle9cPjY
from 15'10" (in french...)

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabbl...ncient-aliens/
(in english...)

[Zeuzzz]

Or rather 165,000/n

Where n is the number of rollers.

[gambling_cruiser]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You just made a mistake on the last one, that would be for 0.25% not 0.01%

In reality though considering geometrical constraints on the rollers, to be practical they would have to be as near to perfectly circular as possible. If they were perfectly circular then your 0.01 number would be more close to the truth, and the psi for that would be 165,000 psi.

You seem to think the rollers are static. Think about elastic deformation. If you put a heavy load on the rollers the contact surface goes up until the pressure is equal to the woods strength. The strength of the sum of all rollers is far above the weight of the stone.

[Tomtomkent]

So which organisations did you contact to find out how much weight can be supported by wooden rollers?
Did you contact archeaologists to inform them Romans (or anybody else) could not use them? Presumably including those who have used rollers to move heavy objects in living memory?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

From above

Why do ancient mystery proponents always miss out things like this?

Odd that zeuzz continues to claim there is no hill, when the evidence says a 15m drop.

Is this a mistake on your part zeuzz, or an excuse to hand wave the methods already discussed?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser

You seem to think the rollers are static. Think about elastic deformation. If you put a heavy load on the rollers the contact surface goes up until the pressure is equal to the woods strength.

I know. And since the wood will be crushed a small amount the contact surface will lower the weight of the stone, and require a lot more force to move it laterally, which was the whole point of my previous calculation and the PE involved in needing to overcome this elastic deformation.

In reality the model is far too simplistic and ideal, as the psi stated is for an ideal wood, when in fact wood is anisotropic meaning that its structure and properties vary in different directions.

For all intents and purposes if the force is applied evenly wood is an elastic material, which can bend in certain specific directions without breaking. check out the youngs modulus of wood.

At it's elastic or proportional limit when a force as large as the one we are talking here is applied the wood will go back only partially to its original shape or crack the whole log.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So which organisations did you contact to find out how much weight can be supported by wooden rollers?
Did you contact archeaologists to inform them Romans (or anybody else) could not use them? Presumably including those who have used rollers to move heavy objects in living memory?

Appeal to authority noted.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Odd that zeuzz continues to claim there is no hill, when the evidence says a 15m drop.

Evidence would be great thanks. This statement seems contrary to many sources.

[Sledge]

Is there a point you're trying to make here, Zeuzzz? We know the rocks were moved. We know the sort of technology available at the time. We can put forward possible explanations as to how the rocks were moved. We probably cannot, short of inventing time travel, ever know for certain exactly which methods were used. So what? And if you're not happy with the explanations some people have put forward, so what? Your personal incredulity is irrelevant to everyone but you unless you've got some new evidence to bring to the table.

So, to summarise: what do you want?

[Zeuzzz]

A model that works, scientifically. I'm waiting for Geemacks model he's been keeping up his sleeve for so long and been so vocal about in this thread. You can wait with me if you want. Any plausible model that holds up to scrutiny is fair game.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

A model that works, scientifically. I'm waiting for Geemacks model he's been keeping up his sleeve for so long and been so vocal about in this thread. You can wait with me if you want. Any plausible model that holds up to scrutiny is fair game.

As far as I can see, such models have been presented. That you personally don't like them is another matter.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Sledge

As far as I can see, such models have been presented. That you personally don't like them is another matter.

Go on then, please feel free to link me to the best complete model so far.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Because there was no hill. This has been pointed out previously.

Maybe we should look up the amazing engineers that built the giant hill afterwards.


from wikimedia.org

http://www.bibleplaces.com/images12/...ibleplaces.jpg

[carlitos]

smaller photo, but you can't see all of the hill.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yes people made it, we established that in a few posts. How they did it is the question. It's an open question.

That's your itch why should anyone else scratch it?

[Zeuzzz]

You can't see the triliton in those pictures, they mean nothing. Just look at any contour map of the area.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by tsig

That's your itch why should anyone else scratch it?

Because I can't reach it, or think of how else to reach it easily without getting help.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You can't see the triliton in those pictures, they mean nothing. Just look at any contour map of the area.

I can't see it in your facebook photos either. What's the big deal? There are trilitons all over the place. Put a baby in front of some blocks, and he makes a triliton. So what?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

That is the roman temple that was built on it's foundations. Unsurprising everything they found was roman. Are there pictures or more details of this expedition?

Your article says 'bedrock'. What foundations would be below bedrock?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I can't see it in your facebook photos either. What's the big deal? There are trilitons all over the place. Put a baby in front of some blocks, and he makes a triliton. So what?

Maybe you should read the thread? I would help if my original post had not been deleted completely.

The old structure that the Romans built the temple of Jupiter on has stones of extremely similar dimensions and properties as the one left in the quarry you showed above, where they were all mined from. There is a considerable distance between the two, and also a considerable height for them to have been lifted and put in place with a precision so accurate that you can barely fit a razor blade in between.



See the person for the scale.

What have you thought this thread has been about? The existence or non existence of a random hill next to the pregnant stone?! Really?

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Seems we are though.

We've given you plenty of ideas.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

A model that works, scientifically.

How about the ones that have already been proposed in this thread?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by godless dave

How about the ones that have already been proposed in this thread?

Which ones in particular do you have in mind? Link me to them or lay out the model in detail so we can skeptically evaluate it scientifically.

[Castro]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You just made a mistake on the last one, that would be for 0.25% not 0.01%

In reality though considering geometrical constraints on the rollers, to be practical they would have to be as near to perfectly circular as possible. If they were perfectly circular then your 0.01 number would be more close to the truth, and the psi for that would be 165,000 psi.

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.