I can move any megalithic stone on hundreds of tons with physics

BlockOut:

• Where exactly to you propose they acquired 1.3 tonnes of mercury? Where did it go when they were done with it?
• A 200 tonne megalith might be 2mx4mx5m, for a submerged surface area of roughly 38m³. 100 litres of mercury would make a wetted surface area of roughly 4 millimetres all around.
• What tolerances (roughly) on the channel walls would be required to support a 200 tonne block in only 100 litres of mercury? 1 millimetre? 2 millimetres?
• How much could they dig out at time, moving only enough to hold 100 litres of mercury? Say, 2 millimetres, front and back?
• How would they dig a gap, 4 metres wide, a metre deep but only 2 millimetres long?
• Just how strong must these canal walls be to sustain this pressire without deformity? Not clay. Rock.
• How long does it take 50 litres of mercury to creep 5 metres through a 4 millimetre gap from front to back?
• What rate of progress do you estimate they made from the trip from the quarry to the build site?

And finally: have you done any of this analysis yourself? Why not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

• Where exactly to you propose they acquired 1.3 tonnes of mercury? Where did it go when they were done with it?

There is arceolic findings of liquid mercury 3000 yera ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/24/liquid-mercury-mexican-pyramid-teotihuacan

• A 200 tonne megalith might be 2m x 4m x 5m, for a submerged surface area of roughly 38m³. 100 litres of mercury would make a wetted surface area of roughly 4 millimetres all around.

1/5 of the volume of granit is in the mercury. Other stone much less.

That is Bottom: 4x5 = 20 m2 and Sides (1/5)x2x(4+4+5+5) = 7.2 In total: 20+7 = 27 m2
Lets say around 30 m2. Lets make that to a square surface in dm 100x30 = 3000 dm2 .
That is 100 x 30 x Thickness = 100 dm3 is the volume of 100 liters.
Thickness is 0.0333 dm as 3.3 mm thick layer of mercury.

• What tolerances (roughly) on the channel walls would be required to support a 200 tonne block in only 100 litres of mercury? 1 millimetre? 2 millimetres?

Lets say the clay walls have a tolerances around 1 mm.
Lets say we have 1000 liter mercury.
100 x 30 x Thickness = 1000 dm3 is the volume of 1000 liters.
Thickness is 0.333 dm as 3.3 cm thick layer of mercury.
Now they can have 1 cm tolerances.

• How much could they dig out at time, moving only enough to hold 100 litres of mercury? Say, 2 millimetres, front and back?

Lets say they been doing liquid mercury for some hundred years and have 2000 liter mercury.
Now they can move the block maybe 1 dm at a time.

• How would they dig a gap, 4 metres wide, a metre deep but only 2 millimetres long?

They first make surfaces flat. Then wrap the stone in fibers and extra thick with fiber on the side they move the stone.
Then a layer clay. Then pack it in with dirt and stone all around. Now the pour in the mercury in the fiber(so under the stone it need much less mercury), until it float.
Now they remove the fiber on one side and move it. Then scope up mercury. And so on....

• Just how strong must these canal walls be to sustain this pressire without deformity? Not clay. Rock.

They will cover it in dirt and stone, so the rock is like in a hole in the ground.
If it is smaller stones they just use water and put boats on its sides and make a water channel for the stone to be moved in.

• How long does it take 50 litres of mercury to creep 5 metres through a 4 millimetre gap from front to back?

If they used mercury for hundreds of years they probably had hundreds of liters of mercury gathered.
So I guess they had more gap under the stone for the mercury to flow through.

• What rate of progress do you estimate they made from the trip from the quarry to the build site?

Years probably ....

And finally: have you done any of this analysis yourself? Why not?

Its just a mind play right now for fun to see where this can lead.....

MagI from Sweden
----------------------------------------

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[QUOTE="BlockOut, post: 3700599, member: 291386]
Its just a mind play right now for fun.....
-[/QUOTE]
That's the most sensible thing you've said so far in this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's the most sensible thing you've said so far in this thread.[/QUOTE]
And you must admit that "arceolic", or rather, arseholic, is quite a useful adjective to add to one's vocabulary.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thirteen tonnes of it?

1 mm. In clay.
Justify that.

Sure. Let's say that. Is there any evidence whatsoever of this?

I mean, why bother with mercury at all? If you're going to fabricate a technology from whole cloth for which there is zero evidence, why not simply invent electrically-powered rolling flatbeds?
After all, there 's "arceolic" evedence of Leyden Jars, so *poof* now we have electric motors.

That's per stone.

So, a typical pyramid, with over 2 million blocks, will take - what? - 2 million years? 5 million years? to build?

 

Thirteen tonnes of it?
--
They seem to have large quantities of mercury in ancient times, in some places.
https://mysteriousunexplainedhistor...cury-pools-doing-underneath-ancient-pyramids/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 mm. In clay.
Justify that.
--
Maybe it can be done as I wrote like this.
-
They first make surfaces flat. Then wrap the stone in fibers, and extra thick with fiber, on the side they move the stone.
Then a layer clay. Then pack the rock in with dirt and stone all around. Now the pour in the mercury in the fiber(so under the stone it need much less mercury), until it float.
Now they remove the fiber on one side and move it. Then scope up mercury. And so on....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. Let's say that. Is there any evidence whatsoever of this?
--
https://mysteriousunexplainedhistor...cury-pools-doing-underneath-ancient-pyramids/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean, why bother with mercury at all? If you're going to fabricate a technology from whole cloth for which there is zero evidence, why not simply invent electrically-powered rolling flatbeds?
After all, there 's "arceolic" evedence of Leyden Jars, so *poof* now we have electric motors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's per stone.
--
There are not that many megalithic stones in lets say balbeck.
And they had time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, a typical pyramid, with over 2 million blocks, will take - what? - 2 million years? 5 million years? to build?
--
Most of the rocks in the pyramid was probably transported under boats in channels right up to the pyramid.
Maybe like this.

Only the largest blocks was moved in mercury.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MagI
-------

 

Any references that aren't mired in woo?

Point-of-order: can you please learn how to use the quote feature?

I haven't any idea how that justifies the tolerances required.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

So, they only built one or two structures that took 2 millions years each...

But they weren't. There is exactly zero evidence of this technology.
Why not have your theory simply skip straight to helicopters?
There is just as much evidence of helicopter technology as mercury-floating technology.

 

how many tones of a 60 ton block does the dirt that you dig out have to support of the 60 ton block ?

60 ton block presses ground with say 20 tons
and then you dig it out ?
with what ?

how do you make it go up and down hills ?

 

A 60 ton rock presses the ground with ... 60 tons.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A good point. OP's idea only works on level ground.

 

Why not indeed?

Evidence of helicopter coming up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Image from Wikipedia
Google helicopter hieroglyphic

Yellow arrow head

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just like boats in a channel.

MagI
-------

 

Just as they do with boats in a channel.

MagI
-------

 

Boats in a channel...
- that weigh 200 tonnes
- that float on 13 tonnes of mercury, a substance only trace amounts were available at the time
- that have walls of clay, yet have tolerances on the order of millimetres
- that are in "locks" only millimetres longer than the boats
- and the locks need to be manually dug out and replaced millimetres at a time.


Remind me what's wrong with this?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You mix it all up.

The larger rocks, was maybe moved in channels with mercury.
You do not need tons of mercury to make a stone to float.
You only need to use some liters of mercury, to make a 10 ton rock to float in theory.
Try to understand this physics.
https://qr.ae/pvA9UD
And the rock only sink 1/5 or less, of its volume in mercury.
-----
Average wight of rocks in cheops is about 2.5 tons.
https://cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/khufu-numbers.html
They were probably transported in water channels like this.


MagI
---------

 

Dude, I get the theory.
In practice, you need numbers.
And your numbers just don't add up.

You say "the larger rocks" are moved with mercury. The larger rocks exceed 80 tons. Yet you give an example of a 10 ton rock.

Which means, at the very least, you're thinking an order of magnitude too small.

Maybe put some thought into the math before you go around telling others what they should try to understand.

 

His numbers are not even to two decibel points

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nyuk.

Maybe if he yelled his ideas loud enough, he'd hit two decibel points?

 

My dyslexia strikes again

Sposed to be decimal places

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This maybe show there is much mercury in chinese tomb.

Go to the end at 1:38:11 or 5880 seconds in to the video.



MagI
-------------

 

You're being too subtle.