Accepted theory or timeline of human development

a reply to: andy06shake

I'm not saying it was or wasn't moved, all I was doing is saying that it could have been done.

a reply to: Guyfriday

No you are ""saying"" it could be done, your not ""showing"" how, and i suspect that's because you cannot.

Where are these people all standing, who's pulling, who's pushing, how much how fast in what direction, at what time of day?

Away you go collect all the variables and then attempt to understand the limitations and predicament you face.

You will be there a while and that thing will still remain in place as it has done for quite some time.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Guyfriday

No you are ""saying"" it could be done, your not ""showing"" how, and i suspect that's because you cannot.

Where are these people all standing, who's pulling, who's pushing, how much how fast in what direction, at what time of day?

Away you go collect all the variables and then attempt to understand the limitations and predicament you face.

You will be there a while and that thing will still remain in place as it has done for quite some time.

Use your eyes this time:


Harte

a reply to: Harte

Mine work just fine.

It's what they are connected to that you may wish to learn to use a little better.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Harte

Mine work just fine.

It's what they are connected to that you may wish to learn to use a little better.

It would seem that you find the rather easy calculation I mentioned to be too difficult for you to fathom.

The capstans, as set up in that diagram, could move and place even larger stones than the one left in the quarry.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

It would seem you think you know it all.

Calculations don't move monoliths back then, people do, and that one is still lying where it was quarried.

Go build your capstans and move it then, or jog along little donkey and do your own math.

You should keep in mind a mathematical proof is an argument that deduces the statement on paper, in reality the practicality of your equations are somewhat different to accomplish.

Anyroad you are moving sweet feck all but your fingers on a keyboard, you know it i know it, and The Stone of the Pregnant Woman dont give a rats arse nether.

a reply to: Harte

What magic?

No magic involved, just processes and procedure, you cannot get your head around nor comprehend.

Me nether, nor anyone else in this day of age for that matter, see we were not there.

Maybe wanna get out and about and try lifting some heavy stuff so you can appreciate the problem.

Coz your paper napkin diagrams not lifting much at all. x

Put it this way moving a stone block weighing 1650 tons is near enough beyond our capabilities today.

For a start our roads, bridges, and railways, are not built to support that much weight, how do you imagine Romans equivalence would fair under such load?

My explanation regarding said monolith is rather simple, its still lying there because they could not move it.

originally posted by: andy06shake

I want there Damascus steel process and method of creation, not our approximation.

Its not approximation unless .xxxx% of each metal, iron from the same mines etc is a approximation, And OUR Damascus is better, easy to measure the old steel against the newer steel, so what is your point? Damascus steel is not some crazy good steel as it has about the same tensile strength as common steel today of about 740 MPa, but we have like 3500 different steels with some exceeding 1500 Mpa like boron steel.

We kind of went deep into steel, but I want you to see that much of what was in the past was not better than we have today even though might have been crazy better than what they had back then. This goes back to working raw stone in they didn't have some tech that we would not know today to do what they did. Even when they used acids to maybe carve stone, or make basic cement for molds there is, once again, only a few chemicals, compounds they would have available and so we know how they did it and with what, but yes we don't have Granma's true recipe, but is it really needed since it wouldn't really provide anymore information in understanding. Damascus steel is really just basic steel with impurities mixed in that gives it the beautiful patterns we see, and those impurities provide bigger metal crystals that does increase sturdiness as in two blades hitting together that other types of steel might be more brittle. As I said CRAZY good for 300 BC...I'm sure back then it was looked at as being magical in nature.

What I think is more interesting is how did they get to the point of maturing their knowledge to make Damascus steel, or work stone at massive levels. That would be interesting, we see it with pyramids as we see the growth of very old ones compared to newer ones in the complexity they evolved into.

I don't see anything from the ancient past being super advanced myself, just different.

I agree

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Xtrozero

So the secret is in the sauce eh?

Actually, yes.

And just a whole lot of supposition on your part.

You don't know what they had access to because you were not there and the recipes were rather secret or just plain lost to the ages.

The supposition seems to be coming from your posts. We didn't have to be there to analyze surviving samples to see exactly what went into the process.

Does it really matter in the end, it does unless you wish our approximations of ancient technology to count.

But where the.raw materials originated from is known. No magic woo or hand waving required.

No hand waving and no Roman concrete recipe ether.

I cant comment on Roman concrete. I'm fully able to admit if I'm ignorant about the specifics of something. Damascus steel however isn't on that list and is the topic currently at hand.

See, because today we have the ability to analyze the specific ingredients in the special sauce that once was known as Damascus Steel, we know that it was either smother from ingots of Wootz steel either imported from Southern India or made in production centres in Sri Lanka, or Khorasan. Your insistence that the process is lost or unknown merely demonstrates that you didn't practice an iota of due diligence on your end and are quite likely repeating someone else's words. My take away in the precipus sentence is supposition whereas the information I posted has had.the scientific method applied to it.

Nothing really special other than the fact that you cannot replicate there handiworks same way they did.

That statement is unequivocally false. But then you would have known that had you done some basic research.

Don't understand why people cannot simply admit people did things back then and we don't know the entirety as to how, or sometimes even why.

People in anthropology and archaeology admit this all the time.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well you canny make Roman concrete so i guess my statement not that unequivocally false after all? x LoL

I was not there, you were not there, there are no records, so you can ""analyse"" the specific ingredients all you wish.

You wont get a true picture or product via any your analysis, just an approximation.

Any more than you will be able to replicate ancient Damascus Steel without the ancient smiths knowledge of the process.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think the steel of the past is of better quality than we have today Xtrozero. LoL

Slightly less radioactive all the same.

I think ancient Damascus steel weapons were simply of superior quality in there own time period and the people equipped with such lucky to have had weaponry of such strength and quality ahead of there time.

Same with the Viking Ulfberht swords.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: peter vlar

Well you canny make Roman concrete so i guess my statement not that unequivocally false after all? x LoL

I was not there, you were not there, there are no records, so you can ""analyse"" the specific ingredients all you wish.

You wont get a true picture or product via any your analysis, just an approximation.

Any more than you will be able to replicate ancient Damascus Steel without the ancient smiths knowledge of the process.

Except that modern smiths using the above referenced scientific analysis are indeed.able to reproduce Damascus Steel. You need to actually do some reading on your own instead of usong the Ken Ham method of discounting anything he doesn't believe in. Due diligence is a good thing to have in one's repertoire.

Regarding your claims about Roman Comcrete-

By analyzing the mineral components of the cement taken from the Pozzuoli Bay breakwater at the laboratory of U.C. Berkeley, as well as facilities in Saudi Arabia and Germany, the international team of researchers was able to discover the “secret” to Roman cement’s durability. They found that the Romans made concrete by mixing lime and volcanic rock to form a mortar. To build underwater structures, this mortar and volcanic tuff were packed into wooden forms. The seawater then triggered a chemical reaction, through which water molecules hydrated the lime and reacted with the ash to cement everything together. The resulting calcium-aluminum-silicate-hydrate (C-A-S-H) bond is exceptionally strong.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think the steel of the past is of better quality than we have today Xtrozero. LoL

Slightly less radioactive all the same.

I think ancient Damascus steel weapons were simply of superior quality in there own time period and the people equipped with such lucky to have had weaponry of such strength and quality ahead of there time.

Same with the Viking Ulfberht swords.

It is actually pretty good steel as far as swords go. I would think someone was tinkering with mixing things with iron and came up with it. Who knew that adding rice husks (carbon) to iron you get steel? Crazy thought to add life to metal. Mixing some other metals too gving you larger crystals that enhanced the blade is rather crazy too back when we were barely using any metal at all.

I agree, but how do we transfer this same thought process to include working, moving, building raw stone? Would it be much the same? Crazy feat for the day, but doable with simple tools, rudimentary understanding of mechanical advantage, a crap load of people and all the time in the world?

Just how crazy and out of place Damascus steel was can be seen when comparing to Japanese steel swords and Ulfberht swords that really didn't appear until about 1000 AD, where Damascus steel started over a 1000 years before. About the time Damascus steel came about Japan was just starting with Bronze swords.

This would be like finding a gun 1000 years earlier than the first ones made...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think the steel of the past is of better quality than we have today Xtrozero. LoL

Slightly less radioactive all the same.

I think ancient Damascus steel weapons were simply of superior quality in there own time period and the people equipped with such lucky to have had weaponry of such strength and quality ahead of there time.

Same with the Viking Ulfberht swords.

It is actually pretty good steel as far as swords go. I would think someone was tinkering with mixing things with iron and came up with it. Who knew that adding rice husks (carbon) to iron you get steel? Crazy thought to add life to metal. Mixing some other metals too gving you larger crystals that enhanced the blade is rather crazy too back when we were barely using any metal at all.

I agree, but how do we transfer this same thought process to include working, moving, building raw stone? Would it be much the same? Crazy feat for the day, but doable with simple tools, rudimentary understanding of mechanical advantage, a crap load of people and all the time in the world?

Just how crazy and out of place Damascus steel was can be seen when comparing to Japanese steel swords and Ulfberht swords that really didn't appear until about 1000 AD, where Damascus steel started over a 1000 years before. About the time Damascus steel came about Japan was just starting with Bronze swords.

This would be like finding a gun 1000 years earlier than the first ones made...lol

They imported the base steel used for Damascus steel from India (Wootz steel.) India entered the Iron Age earlier than most, and they were making things from steel before anyone in the ME.

Harte

a reply to: peter vlar

If i reproduce the Mona Lisa is it the same?

It might be great, it might be near perfect, but not the original.

Good luck with your approximations, because that's all they ever can be without the recipe and the knowledge of the smiths who forged the steel.

Im still claiming you cannot reproduce Roman concrete, nor true Damascus Steel.

a reply to: andy06shake

Comparing a singular, original piece of art by an artist with a signature style to mass produced steel and concrete is a massive logical fallacy. You clearly havent done your own research into this or you wpuldnt come.off so willfully ignorant.

originally posted by: Harte

They imported the base steel used for Damascus steel from India (Wootz steel.) India entered the Iron Age earlier than most, and they were making things from steel before anyone in the ME.

Harte

Could have ruled the world, just glad Hinduism is not as blood thirsty as other religions seemed to be...

a reply to: peter vlar

Does art have styles?

The comparison is self evident as is the quality and craftsmanship.

The Man that painted that picture was certainly ahead of his time.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Clearly indeed. x



Wee hint just so you actually learn something, art is every where, and we display it and incorporate it in everything we do, same with the golden ratio funnily enough. x

a reply to: andy06shake


A Very Informative Video here .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: andy06shake


A Very Informative Video here .

No, really.
It's a load of crap. The only "mysterious" object mentioned is the Lawn Ridge "coin," which only survives as a sketch and a story.

The narrator also fails to mention that remains of constructed dwellings dating to 500,000 years ago have been found, preferring to pretend that the violent Earth would destroy everything that old.

Quite the opposite of "informative.' In fact, it's actively disinformative.

Harte