Billy Brown wrote:
> Dwayne wrote:
> > Are you sure of this? That we can move single objects over
> > ground weighing thousands of tons?
> Absolutely. A single locomotive engine can haul several tens of
> of tons, and you can easily reach hundreds of thousands just by
> several of them together. For that part of the problem it doesn't
> what you are moving is one big object or a collection of little ones,
> problem is the same either way.
Bzzzzt! I didn't say "hauling" I said "moving"
your railway example requires vast amounts of infrastructure before it
I'll pose the question again: can we easily move monolithic chunks of
weighing thousands of tons?
In fact, I'll be specific: could we move the lower courses of the temple of
Jupiter at Baalbek to, say, Rome?
> You can load a thousand-ton rock onto a carrying platform by building
> and using a couple of locomotive engines to drag it (if you want to be
> sophisticated, you can lubricate the ramp or put rollers under the
> make it move more easily). You haul it off the platform and into
> the same way.
Now, do you know this for a fact? That this is how it would be done? I'm
thinking your rock can't flex a lot, so what about the bit where it goes
the inclined plane of the ramp to the horizontal plane of the carriage? Won't it
thinking your rock can't flex a lot, so what about the bit where it goes from
I'm not being contrary, I just want to make sure that we are dealing
engineering principles here, not lots of people playing "I think" games based on
spurious theories of modern capability.
> Note, by the way, that this is all 19th-century technology. We could
> probably scale it up quite a bit if we needed to for some reason -
> to millions of tons, and possible to tens of millions.
I'm not aware of how we could lift a million-ton object.
You haven't suggested how we could lift a thousand ton object? Anyone
the carrying capacity of the largest crane in the world is?
> > Um, please read my reply to Michael Lorry. I mean the foundations
> > extremely square, edges and corners all line up, etc., to a very
> > degree of error.
> OK. Different problem, but the answer is the same - we can shape
> pretty much any degree of precision you want to pay for. Commercial
> construction techniques aren't up to the job, but that is only because
> one wants to pay for that kind of precision anymore.
Aha. So it is a cost factor, not a doability factor.
> With scientific equipment you can easily measure off your dimensions
> accuracy of a few millimetres, regardless of how big the structure is.
> Measuring exact angles is also no big deal - telescope aiming systems
> routinely point objects in a desired direction with an error of <0.1
> arc-second, which is far bette than the pyramids.
> If you can make the required measurements, actually building to them
> a matter of money. Either you spend extra time carefully placing your
> before pouring concrete, or you come back afterwards and cut away
> that isn't supposed to be there.
Right. Hmmmm. So maybe this engineer was a tame engineer quoted to make
ancients look mysterious.
> The fact that a TV show dedicated to spreading the "ancient wonder
> meme was able to find someone to quote really doesn't carry much
> You can find *someone* who will agree with just about anything. I
> the Flat Earth Society has a couple of members who are engineers, too.
Um. So much for that bright idea.
I realise that you can get talking heads to say anything, but I would assume
that a show which is trying to convince people of dubious stuff would make extra
effort to get qualified talking heads.
> The important question is what the general consensus of the experts
> looked into this several years ago, and what I found was that the
> consensus among archaeologists is that there is no big mystery to be
> explained. In Egypt, Greece and the Middle East they've worked out
> how just about everything was built, and can sometimes even trace the
> of new techniques from one culture to another across the course of
Mind you, archaeologists will frequently come up with explanations which
rational analysis should you actually try to attempt what they are saying, as
they have a professional abhorrence of the "we have no idea" response.
-- mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org http://i.am/dwayne "the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection into our dimension of something much larger and wirder." ---email@example.com ....return....to....the....source....