[Rockhounds] Stonehenge rebuilt-maybe off topic?

[Kreigh Tomaszewski]

It is the first explanation I have seen that has been demonstrated to
work. I'll go with Occam's Razor on this, pending better alternatives.

Kreigh





J Bryan Kramer wrote:
> 
> Actually the stones may have been a lot flatter 4000 years ago, they've had
> 4000 years of weather after all and maybe some exfoliation.
> 
> The real problem with this sort of thing is that it proves exactly what the
> Kon-Tiki proved. Not one thing. Just because some fellow with 4000 years of
> technology in his head can come up with some clever solution doesn't lead
> one to conclude that some blue painted, pre-math natives came up with the
> same solution.
> 
> BK
> 
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Kreigh Tomaszewski <Kreigh at tomaszewski.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > Axel,
> >
> > I don't really see a problem.
> >
> > The first key is balancing the block (square or rounded) on one or two
> > small stones so it can be rotated. Flat or rounded faces should not make
> > a significant difference with that small a contact point.
> >
> > The second key is tipping back and forth on the length to be able to
> > raise the block. Again, flat or rounded faces have no effect on this.
> >
> > The third key was the wave shaped rail used to roll the square blocks.
> > With rounded blocks the rail is probably not necessary because they
> > would roll by themselves.
> >
> > Large blocks of stone would tend to be quarried with flat faces. Wear in
> > transporting them by rolling would be concentrated on the corners,
> > rounding the block faces. I suspect weathering of these thousands of
> > years old blocks would also be concentrated at the edges, rounding them
> > over time. The blocks of Stonehenge may originally have had flat faces
> > when the construction occurred.
> >
> > The only real issue I see is that rounded faces might make it harder to
> > affix levers for rotating the blocks, but the contour could also be an
> > advantage as the curve makes it easier to grip the stone. A lever with
> > curved jaws
> >
> >                _____________________
> >                      [_(   )_]
> >
> > would not pop off and would make it easier to rock the stone block to
> > place pebbles under it.
> >
> > The only unanswered question I had was how to you get a fulcrum under a
> > large block sitting on the ground to get the process started. I assummed
> > a long first class lever. This step is probably the limiting factor in
> > how big a block could be and still be moveable.
> >
> > As Kermit the Frog said, "Time's fun when you're having flies".
> >
> > Kreigh
> >
> >
> >
> > Axel Emmermann wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Stu and Kreigh,
> > >
> > > After careful consideration I think I just may have found a musca
> > domestica
> > > linnaeus in the ointment.
> > > The concrete beams are rectangular in circumference. That means that the
> > > weight of the beam is evenly distributed over the contact zone with the
> > > wooden beams or rollers.
> > > A object that is less "flat" in circumference would seriously reduce the
> > > surface of the pressure point. I looked at some photos of Stonehenge and
> > I
> > > found that the erected stones are quite rounded, almost oval.
> > > Wouldn't they rather crush the wooden rollers or beam upon which they
> > rest?
> > >
> > > Hate to be the party-p... but this needs some thinking...
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Axel
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > > Van: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
> > > > [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] Namens Kreigh
> > > > Tomaszewski
> > > > Verzonden: donderdag 6 maart 2008 3:41
> > > > Aan: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
> > > > collectors
> > > > Onderwerp: Re: [Rockhounds] Stonehenge rebuilt-maybe off topic?
> > > >
> > > > Stu,
> > > >
> > > > Truely amazing!
> > > >
> > > > Very on topic; I'm sure we've all tried to move big rocks at
> > > > one time or another.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you very much for sharing this.
> > > >
> > > > Kreigh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stu Schmitt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's amazing that this guy could figure out something which
> > > > has confounded scholars for centuries. Not only did he figure
> > > > it out but he demonstrates it.  This guy could build a
> > > > replica of Stonehenge single handedly while a committee of
> > > > Civil Engineering professors from leading universities were
> > > > debating how it might be done.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/moving_big_rocks/
> > > > >
> > > > > With appreciation & gratitude,
> > > > > Stuart Schmitt
> > > > > Clear Creek Crystal Mine
> > > > > www.arcrystalmine.com
> > > > > 60 Mary's Eagle Trail
> > > > > Mount Ida, AR 71957
> > > > > (870) 867-2443
> > > > >
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> > Subscription Services:
> > http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> > List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> > http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
> >
> 
> --
> "Photography, as we all know, is not real at all. It is an illusion of
> reality with which we create our own private world."
> Arnold Newman
> 
> J Bryan Kramer
> North Florida, USA
> photos at:
> http://pbase.com/photoburner
>