[Pants-of-dog]

Pants-of-dog,

We are not talking about a few times some fat guys weight, the stones in question are 15 to 30 tons. As you ca see from the above photo they also used metal structuring, not unlike todays tech and drilled small holes deeply into stone. There are many accounts of tech used long ago that we do not have the ability to do today, Greek fire and underwater cement just to name two.

The point behind getting Oxy to watch the youtube video is not to make him think some white guy with a belly lifted little stones to make the Pyramids. It was to illustrate the fact that using only stone age technology, it is possible to make simple machines that will allow anyone (or a group of people) to move stones of almost any size.

We can make underwater concrete. All concrete can harden underwater. The Romans did it with pozzolano, as described by Vitruvius. We do it with modern materials.

[U184]

The problem with that is, that a modern mind used modern ideas to make something, just because he use old materials does not lend credence. One would also have to limit the design to what was known at the time.

We can make underwater concrete. All concrete can harden underwater. The Romans did it with pozzolano, as described by Vitruvius. We do it with modern materials.

Yes, we can, yet that was not discovered untill the late 1800's. However our cement decays rather fast and becomes brittle, whereas the Roman concrete lasts for 1000's of years a feat we have yet to master.

[Pants-of-dog]

The problem with that is, that a modern mind used modern ideas to make something, just because he use old materials does not lend credence. One would also have to limit the design to what was known at the time.

What modern ideas are you talking about? Design is really only limited by two things: ingenuity and materials.

By limiting the materials used to what was available at the time, he shows that innovative humans can design ways to move incredibly heavy and large objects.

Yes, we can, yet that was not discovered untill the late 1800's. However our cement decays rather fast and becomes brittle, whereas the Roman concrete lasts for 1000's of years a feat we have yet to master.

You have no idea if an RCC concrete with a high fly ash content (the modern equivalent to the beaten pozzolano used in Roman times) could not last thousands of years if it has been as well maintained as the Pantheon.

[Takkon]

In my opinion using the opucum razor theory or what ever it is called, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.


So should we believe that people using primitive tools, used some super mysterious techniques to build the structures?

Or should we believe that ancient people were as advanced if not more so in this type of building, if not all together more advanced then we give them credit for.

You're misapplying occam's razor. It's actually more like, given two explanations of equal merit, go with the one that uses the least amount of assumptions. In this case, the explanations are not of equal merit: one is factually sound the other is not.

Contained within the pyramids are detailed accounts of how they were built.

[U184]

I am not referring to the Pantheon, I was speaking about the harbors underwater. We know modern concrete needs to be maintained within 50 years.

What modern ideas are you talking about? Design is really only limited by two things: ingenuity and materials.

As for the above I am talking about reality. In the past bearings, gears and leverage pulley systems were VERY crude(and for the most part did not exist at all) and hardly feasible with soft metals, so unless the man also limited his ingenuity to that of the given time frame, his contraption is meaningless as a means to explain anything.

[Godstud]

The "ancient" Egyptians were skilled at electro-plating. They were obviously more advanced than people give them credit for.
http://ancientskyscraper.com/322712.html Neat site actually, aside from annoying sound.

[U184]

It has also been speculated via findings, that they used clay pots and vinegar for that electroplating, possibly even as a light source>Baghdad battery.

[Dagoth Ur]

Electric power has been discovered over and over throughout history. It's just last time we had the industrial revolution to build a network with.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not referring to the Pantheon, I was speaking about the harbors underwater. We know modern concrete needs to be maintained within 50 years.

Please provide some sort of source for your claims.

As for the above I am talking about reality. In the past bearings, gears and leverage pulley systems were VERY crude(and for the most part did not exist at all) and hardly feasible with soft metals, so unless the man also limited his ingenuity to that of the given time frame, his contraption is meaningless as a means to explain anything.

Yes, if you were to make a gear or pulley system with Stone Age materials, you would get a very crude machine.

[U184]

Claims> Proof> for the 50 years or the harbors?

No not a crude machine, crude technology = you are not going to move 30k-lbs. Gears and pulley systems, etc. Only came to reall feasibility around the 1500's.

[Pants-of-dog]

Claims> Proof> for the 50 years or the harbors?

If you are asking if I want evidence for your claims about Roman underwater concrete lasting thosuands of years without maintenance, then yes.

No not a crude machine, crude technology = you are not going to move 30k-lbs. Gears and pulley systems, etc. Only came to reall feasibility around the 1500's.

Please write using complete sentences. It is somewhat diffcult to decipher your stream of consciousness writing.

The point, as I keep repeating, is that it is possible to move large, heavy stones with stone age tech.

Here is an article describing people's attempts to do so:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h ... n28844889/

[U184]

I am not referring to the Pantheon, I was speaking about the harbors underwater. We know modern concrete needs to be maintained within 50 years. Please provide some sort of source for your claims.

I asked which one... that should not be a hard thing to understand...be clear in what you ask.

Please write using complete sentences. It is somewhat diffcult to decipher your stream of consciousness writing.

Oh no! Your grammar confuses me...(says the man who misspells difficult) is in my experience, the cry of the inept. Either you understand or you don't, I will not change anything at your demand, so deal with it.

Look, this pattern of getting testy when at odds with a post/poster is getting old.

Stick to the information at hand. (you know the adage about glass houses and stones, right?)

Back to the debate...

The point, as I keep repeating, is that it is possible to move large, heavy stones with stone age tech.

Maybe repeating yourself is not getting your point across. I understand your point, such as it is. MY point is, one may be able to make a flashlight using only old technology...but the world had not yet had the ingenuity to create a flashlight to begin with, so it would prove nothing.

Either way, your link shows that their efforts capped out around 5tons and that just is not enough to work for the heavy loads that we are talking about.

I want evidence for your claims about Roman underwater concrete lasting thousands of years without maintenance

Of course there was no maintenance and no, the cement is not in pristine condition either. Yet considering the inherent problems and maintenance needs of current cement structures the Roman Cement is impressive at the least and possibly superior in many ways.

Here is an informative report >Assessment of Underwater Concrete Technologies for In-the-Wet Construction of Navigation Structures by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center.


Here is The Roman Maritime Concrete Study.

Also> Caesarea Maritima is one, of many examples.

Tectonic (defined) events may also have played a role in the destruction of a harbor far older than the "wicked city" of Port Royal. Although precisely how and when portions of the ancient harbor of Caesarea Maritima sank beneath the sea is still the subject of scholarly dispute, it is clear that the underwater ruins are a boon for maritime archeologists and historians.

Built 2,000 years ago in present-day Israel by King Herod, the harbor is now partially submerged beneath the Mediterranean, preserving a nifty archeological record that proves how advanced the ancients were in the construction of harbors.

King Herod's imported Roman engineers, it seems, enlisted the sea to help them complete the world's first modern harbor. Moreover, they had a formula for cement that could harden underwater, and may have incorporated into the design a sluicing system that created a current to cleanse the harbor of ship-stopping sediments, an engineering marvel not yet understood by today's scientists.

Work by University of Colorado historian Robert Hohlfelder and others has unmasked an ingenious system of breakwater construction. Large stone and concrete blocks were laid out in checkerboard fashion. Then the alternating hollows between the set and submerged blocks, all encased in a wooden framework, quickly filled with sand as a result of natural sea action. Finally, Hohlfelder says, the breakwater was "capped with rubble, concrete and paving stones to form continuous sea walls."

High-tech cement work
Eduard G. Reinhardt, a geoarcheologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia who has been helping excavate and study the submerged harbor since 1990, calls the accomplishments of the Roman engineers "astonishing... . The introduction of hydraulic concrete was such a technological innovation that it transformed how harbors were built," contends Reinhardt, noting that its first use in harbor construction was in the harbor at Cosa, Italy, dated to the first half of the second century B.C.

Some scholars, Reinhardt says, believe the Romans knew more about building harbors than we do today.

"What makes Caesarea unique is the method of formwork construction for the concrete and the grandeur of the project. Nothing of this size had been attempted before," he notes of the 100-acre harbor. "Hydraulic concrete allowed the construction of harbors anywhere."

Artifacts, being raised (top) with the help of some simple technology. Other finds at Caesarea Maritima come to light through the use of metal syclinders designed to keep sediment from flooding areas under excavation. lead ingotTypically, harbors are sited using the natural shape of a coastline, and their builders exploit naturally occurring bays, coves and islands. But the straight coastline of Israel makes harbor construction especially difficult. The ability to build with cement enabled ancient engineers to build out from the coastline, providing a safe port of call for ancient shipping moving along the coast from Turkey and Cyprus to Egypt, according to Reinhardt.

What was the secret ingredient for the Romans' hydraulic cement? Apparently, says Reinhardt, it was pozzolana, AKA volcanic ash. That, too, was imported to Caesarea Maritima from Italy, probably from the neighborhood of Mount Vesuvius.

The harbor was also built very quickly, in less than a decade, and is considered one of the most innovative and successful engineering feats of the ancient world.

[Godstud]

Humans had the ingenuity to discover the world was round in 300 BC. They utilized amazing engineering that rivals modern structures. Primitive tech is highly under-rated.

Making the assumption that, because man was 'primitive', that they couldn't figure out massive multi-ton stones with primitive tech, is ludicrous! Aliens sure the fuck didn't do it in all the thousand instances they've discovered. That leaves only man's ingenuity. Occam's razor, right?

Either way, your link shows that their efforts capped out around 5tons and that just is not enough to work for the heavy loads that we are talking about.

This is not rocket science.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_gpipes.htm

This guy moves 25 ton rocks.
[youtube]lRRDzFROMx0[/youtube]

It must be nice to live in a nice insular world where only modern man is capable of 'thinking', but it's really naive and ignorant to assume that man wasn't able to do this prior to 1500.

[U184]

Making the assumption that, because man was 'primitive', that they couldn't figure out massive multi-ton stones with primitive tech, is ludicrous!

I was not suggesting that humans did not build the pyramids...So no assumptions were made. I said the evidence PoD used was not up to the task of proving his point.

It must be nice to live in a nice insular world where only modern man is capable of 'thinking', but it's really naive and ignorant to assume that man wasn't able to do this prior to 1500.

Nor was I suggesting this. My point being that, using modern tech as a means to prove possible ancients methods is by no means proof positive.

Is there any hard research from professionals or Educational institutions that back these suggestions? I mean, as informative as sites like world-mysteries is, it really does not give rise to firm supporting evidence.

[Godstud]

My point being that, using modern tech as a means to prove possible ancients methods is by no means proof positive.

Of course not. But.... if people now can think of these things using primitive methodology, it is extremely logical, and likely, that primitive peoples came up with these very same ideas. To dismiss it because they "might not have thought of it" IS silly. Yes, assumptions have to be made, but again, we're finding that our "primitive ancestors" were not primitive in many ways. They may have lacked to the fancy power tools, but they had no shortage of ingenuity, and their architecture was, at times, incredible.

Greek Fire was used in ancient times, yet we still haven't figured out how to make it. Does that mean we're dumb, or they were smart?

Is there any hard research from professionals or Educational institutions that back these suggestions? I mean, as informative as sites like world-mysteries is, it really does not give rise to firm supporting evidence.

A non-professional figuring it out seems to me better evidence than some professor 'guessing' at how it was done. There's lots of hard research.

How were the Pyramids Built
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104302.htm
Discovering the Secrets of Stonehenge
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 010931.htm

[Pants-of-dog]

I asked which one... that should not be a hard thing to understand...be clear in what you ask.

Oh no! Your grammar confuses me...(says the man who misspells difficult) is in my experience, the cry of the inept. Either you understand or you don't, I will not change anything at your demand, so deal with it.

Look, this pattern of getting testy when at odds with a post/poster is getting old.

Stick to the information at hand. (you know the adage about glass houses and stones, right?)

Just as you have heard of the one about pots and kettles.

Maybe repeating yourself is not getting your point across. I understand your point, such as it is. MY point is, one may be able to make a flashlight using only old technology...but the world had not yet had the ingenuity to create a flashlight to begin with, so it would prove nothing.

Either way, your link shows that their efforts capped out around 5tons and that just is not enough to work for the heavy loads that we are talking about.

5 tons per man. The largest moved stone seems to be about 1000 tons. That would be 200 men, which is feasible.

There is no reason to believe that the ingenuity of the megalith builders was any less than ours.

Of course there was no maintenance and no, the cement is not in pristine condition either. Yet considering the inherent problems and maintenance needs of current cement structures the Roman Cement is impressive at the least and possibly superior in many ways.

It is concrete, not cement. Cement is an ingredient in concrete. And as we can see from your sources, the quality of the work during the Roman era was such that it did not last until the modern era. In the case of Casarea Maritima, it lasted until the 6th century AD at most.

Roman concrete was impressive at the time, but it is no more impressive than the concrete under your feet.

Here is an informative report >Assessment of Underwater Concrete Technologies for In-the-Wet Construction of Navigation Structures by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development centre.


Here is The Roman Maritime Concrete Study.

Also> Caesarea Maritima is one, of many examples.

Thank you for the excellent reading.

[Suska]

What are we even discussing here?

We burn shit. That's what we do that's new; combustion engines. And we rely on our engines for everything. You can see it any time you watch one of the History Channel reenactments where they drag a bunch of engineering students out to erect a megalith. They immediately grab a forklift. They can't even think in ancient terms - or even terms of energy efficiency. Wally Wallington is a star in my book.

The whole point of megalithic architecture is that it's impressive, not that it's impossible. The principle can be as simple as any house (and you don't get simpler than a pyramid), just scaled up.

I'm not skeptical of ancient intelligence, not near as skeptical as I am of modern intelligence anyway.

[U184]

pots and kettles

The problem is, when you start shit you really can not use that. Nor is it especially convincing to reprimand someone while doing what you are complaining about. I pointed that out, yet did not insult you because of it, had you not gone there I would care less that your spelling is less than perfect.

PoD, why not just stick to debates and the information, there is nothing to be gained by starting drama. The actual information, not a wave of the hand dismissed portion of the information.

Yes, assumptions have to be made, but again, we're finding that our "primitive ancestors" were not primitive in many ways. They may have lacked to the fancy power tools, but they had no shortage of ingenuity, and their architecture was, at times, incredible.

The ingenuity of the ancients can not be questioned. One can not assume though that the ancients were so capable, that they invented things outside of the known timeline. There are of course demonstrated exceptions but then there is records of that. When there is no records and no evidence, one can not just make it up and say "there, that is how they did it".

There is no reason to believe that the ingenuity of the megalith builders was any less than ours.

Sure there is, sorta. My stance here on ingenuity is simple. Men stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. Thus a person from modern times has much greater experience and knowledge then those of ancient time. So this modern person has many more tools to draw on then the ancient man did.

An ancient decides to get water from A to B. He needs to figure out how by trial and error, then find the best method and materials to do so. Then after trials and tribulations he comes up with a solution. The modern man sees the same problem then takes the materials at hand and recreates the same apparatus.

The ancients showed more ingenuity and powers of creative invention than modern man, because they had to.

The only ingenuity that the modern man is using, is how to conform the tools and materials on hand, in order to accomplish his needs while using learned knowledge. Now in order for us to show the relevance of any such apparatus, the modern man would have to, recreate exactly, the same ancient apparatus. The reason being that, if the modern man diverges from what is demonstrated ancient knowledge and uses modern learned knowledge, it is out of keeping from what the ancients had.

Now, you can say "but they might have" the problem there being, they "MIGHT HAVE"... anything. I could think of 100's of deviations from that might. None of those mights would be any more accurate than the other and none of those mights would be of any help in deciding the truth of things.

And as we can see from your sources, the quality of the work during the Roman era was such that it did not last until the modern era. In the case of Casarea Maritima, it lasted until the 6th century AD at most.

Sure it did not last, we did not hear about it. In fact, nothing of it is left and no part of it is intact...your right, you got it and with just a wave of your hand...amazing.

Thank you for the excellent reading.

Welcome. The part that goes over how cement needs upkeep or it will be completely gone in less than 200 years was particularly insightful, don't you think?

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol:

The problem is, when you start shit you really can not use that. Nor is it especially convincing to reprimand someone while doing what you are complaining about. I pointed that out, yet did not insult you because of it, had you not gone there I would care less that your spelling is less than perfect.

PoD, why not just stick to debates and the information, there is nothing to be gained by starting drama. The actual information, not a wave of the hand dismissed portion of the information.

Sure.

Sure there is, sorta. My stance here on ingenuity is simple. Men stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. Thus a person from modern times has much greater experience and knowledge then those of ancient time. So this modern person has many more tools to draw on then the ancient man did.

Ingenuity, in my claim that the megalith builders were just as ingenous as modern humans, is not about the quantity of tools or techniques at your disposal, but of how creatviely and efficiently you apply the tools you have.

An ancient decides to get water from A to B. He needs to figure out how by trial and error, then find the best method and materials to do so. Then after trials and tribulations he comes up with a solution. The modern man sees the same problem then takes the materials at hand and recreates the same apparatus.

The ancients showed more ingenuity and powers of creative invention than modern man, because they had to.

The only ingenuity that the modern man is using, is how to conform the tools and materials on hand, in order to accomplish his needs while using learned knowledge. Now in order for us to show the relevance of any such apparatus, the modern man would have to, recreate exactly, the same ancient apparatus. The reason being that, if the modern man diverges from what is demonstrated ancient knowledge and uses modern learned knowledge, it is out of keeping from what the ancients had.

Yes. I am glad that you agree.

Now, you can say "but they might have" the problem there being, they "MIGHT HAVE"... anything. I could think of 100's of deviations from that might. None of those mights would be any more accurate than the other and none of those mights would be of any help in deciding the truth of things.

Yes and no. While I agree that there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses as to how they built these structures, some would lead us to look for evidence in certain areas, and when we found it (or did not find it) we would know more about ancient building practices. There is no proof positive, but there never is.

Sure it did not last, we did not hear about it. In fact, nothing of it is left and no part of it is intact...your right, you got it and with just a wave of your hand...amazing.

From your wiki link:

....Studies of the concrete cores of the moles at Caesarea have shown that the concrete is much weaker than similar pozzolana hydraulic concrete used in various ancient Italian ports. For unknown reasons, the pozzolana mortar did not adhere as well to the kurkar rubble as it did to other rubble types used in Italian harbors.[13] Small but numerous holes in some of the cores also indicate that the lime used was of poor quality and was stripped out of the mixture by strong waves before it could set.[13] Also, large lumps of lime were found in all five of the cores studied at Caesarea, which shows that the pozzolana-lime mixture was not mixed thoroughly, perhaps due to the incredibly rapid construction of the harbor.[13] These structural deficits probably would not have seriously affected the harbor’s stability, except for one other detail – the harbor had been constructed over a geological fault line that runs along the coast of Israel. Seismic action gradually took its toll on the breakwaters, causing them to tilt down and settle into the seabed.[15] Also, studies of seabed deposits at Caesarea have shown that a tsunami struck the area sometime between the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.[16] Although it is unknown if this tsunami simply damaged or completely destroyed the harbor, it is known that by the 6th century AD the harbor was unusable and today the moles rest over 5 meters underwater.[17]

Welcome. The part that goes over how cement needs upkeep or it will be completely gone in less than 200 years was particularly insightful, don't you think?

Please quote the relevant text, as I did not find it. Thank you.

[U184]

The point is, it is still there and the entire substructure is still intact, as I said "it is not in pristine condition".

I am at the dojo doing testings. I will go over the PDF and relate the requested information later tonight/tomorrow morning. I think it was from that PDF, if not I will site where it popped up from.

PoD, You are a good poster and often have valid and insightful comments and we have good debates, so please lets just keep it simply to debate.