2012 End of the world? page 1
terrific
5th February 2012, 01:32 PM
How many of you believe the world will be ended on 21 December 2012??
Adenosine
5th February 2012, 01:38 PM
Gonna ruin my kids' Giftmas if it does. So it'd better not.
Jerome
5th February 2012, 01:47 PM
It is the end of a calendar.
The real question is how did those ancient people have the ability to make such an accurate calendar?
The real question is how did those ancient people have the ability to make such an accurate calendar?
Dan B
5th February 2012, 03:55 PM
Math doesn't require much in the way of a technological infrastructure.
eta: @the OP. No.
eta: @the OP. No.
Supernaut
5th February 2012, 04:13 PM
I get all :hair: just thinking about 2012
nick
5th February 2012, 04:22 PM
The end of the world will not happen, what will actually happen is the creation of the world.
terrific
5th February 2012, 05:33 PM
well, there are different religions who believe in the mystery, even i saw a news about it and do any1 heard the strange voice?? It was heard in Canada, costa rica, mexico etc....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uq4cjhCYUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uq4cjhCYUM
Jerome
5th February 2012, 05:40 PM
That is just the Earth expanding.
borealis
5th February 2012, 06:03 PM
It is the end of a calendar.
The real question is how did those ancient people have the ability to make such an accurate calendar?
Knots. And brains pretty much exactly like ours. They also had mad skills when it came to agriculture, architecture, arts, and quite a few other things.
The real question is how did those ancient people have the ability to make such an accurate calendar?
Knots. And brains pretty much exactly like ours. They also had mad skills when it came to agriculture, architecture, arts, and quite a few other things.
Jerome
5th February 2012, 06:37 PM
What was then the collapse? It certainly wasn't a few hundred Spanish with guns.
borealis
5th February 2012, 07:19 PM
What was then the collapse? It certainly wasn't a few hundred Spanish with guns.
I believe the general hypotheses include prolonged drought reducing the ability of the major centres to feed everyone. People who were the kind of specialised artisans it takes to maintain such places gradually drifted away and had to turn to basic farming to feed their families.
I believe the general hypotheses include prolonged drought reducing the ability of the major centres to feed everyone. People who were the kind of specialised artisans it takes to maintain such places gradually drifted away and had to turn to basic farming to feed their families.
PermanentlyEphemeral
5th February 2012, 07:51 PM
What was then the collapse? It certainly wasn't a few hundred Spanish with guns.
You forgot the diseases they brought along for the ride.
Plus maybe their society was built almost as much as a house of cards as ours is. It wouldn't take much to make it fall apart.
You forgot the diseases they brought along for the ride.
Plus maybe their society was built almost as much as a house of cards as ours is. It wouldn't take much to make it fall apart.
Dan B
5th February 2012, 07:57 PM
What was then the collapse? It certainly wasn't a few hundred Spanish with guns.
I believe the general hypotheses include prolonged drought reducing the ability of the major centres to feed everyone. People who were the kind of specialised artisans it takes to maintain such places gradually drifted away and had to turn to basic farming to feed their families.
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
I believe the general hypotheses include prolonged drought reducing the ability of the major centres to feed everyone. People who were the kind of specialised artisans it takes to maintain such places gradually drifted away and had to turn to basic farming to feed their families.
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
borealis
5th February 2012, 09:15 PM
What was then the collapse? It certainly wasn't a few hundred Spanish with guns.
I believe the general hypotheses include prolonged drought reducing the ability of the major centres to feed everyone. People who were the kind of specialised artisans it takes to maintain such places gradually drifted away and had to turn to basic farming to feed their families.
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
I think I've been guilty of confusing my Mayans with my Aztecs back a bit.
As for the Mayans, whose calendar everyone's so worked up over, here's wiki...
Some 88 different theories or variations of theories attempting to explain the Classic Maya Collapse have been identified.[4] From climate change to deforestation to lack of action by Mayan kings, there is no universally accepted collapse theory, although drought is gaining momentum as the leading explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse
Not a bad wiki. I recently read somewhere about the more recent understanding of Mayan agriculture methods, which were pretty sophisticated. Satellite imagery has played a big part in discovering just how extensively Mayans controlled their farming.
I believe the general hypotheses include prolonged drought reducing the ability of the major centres to feed everyone. People who were the kind of specialised artisans it takes to maintain such places gradually drifted away and had to turn to basic farming to feed their families.
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
I think I've been guilty of confusing my Mayans with my Aztecs back a bit.
As for the Mayans, whose calendar everyone's so worked up over, here's wiki...
Some 88 different theories or variations of theories attempting to explain the Classic Maya Collapse have been identified.[4] From climate change to deforestation to lack of action by Mayan kings, there is no universally accepted collapse theory, although drought is gaining momentum as the leading explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse
Not a bad wiki. I recently read somewhere about the more recent understanding of Mayan agriculture methods, which were pretty sophisticated. Satellite imagery has played a big part in discovering just how extensively Mayans controlled their farming.
Jerome
5th February 2012, 09:16 PM
I believe the general hypotheses include prolonged drought reducing the ability of the major centres to feed everyone.
When was there a long drought in north south america?
When was there a long drought in north south america?
Jerome
5th February 2012, 09:17 PM
You forgot the diseases they brought along for the ride.
Plus maybe their society was built almost as much as a house of cards as ours is. It wouldn't take much to make it fall apart.
this western guilt does not hold water because the asians are thriving throughout and today.
Plus maybe their society was built almost as much as a house of cards as ours is. It wouldn't take much to make it fall apart.
this western guilt does not hold water because the asians are thriving throughout and today.
Jerome
5th February 2012, 09:19 PM
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
Jerome
5th February 2012, 09:22 PM
I recently read somewhere about the more recent understanding of Mayan agriculture methods, which were pretty sophisticated. Satellite imagery has played a big part in discovering just how extensively Mayans controlled their farming.
The past is not what we think it is.
The past is not what we think it is.
borealis
5th February 2012, 09:23 PM
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
My grandfather's 300 acres of pastures and fields were without forests for about 150 years. less than sixty years later, they are all thickly forested.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
My grandfather's 300 acres of pastures and fields were without forests for about 150 years. less than sixty years later, they are all thickly forested.
Jerome
5th February 2012, 09:29 PM
My grandfather's 300 acres of pastures and fields were without forests for about 150 years. less than sixty years later, they are all thickly forested.
no doubt
no doubt
Dan B
5th February 2012, 09:48 PM
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
My grandfather's 300 acres of pastures and fields were without forests for about 150 years. less than sixty years later, they are all thickly forested.
Your grandfather farmed in a rainforest?
Rainforest... hmmm... I wonder why they call them that?
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
My grandfather's 300 acres of pastures and fields were without forests for about 150 years. less than sixty years later, they are all thickly forested.
Your grandfather farmed in a rainforest?
Rainforest... hmmm... I wonder why they call them that?
Jerome
5th February 2012, 09:54 PM
:noo:
Adenosine
6th February 2012, 12:54 AM
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
:stare:
idgi
I mean, I know you're trying to make some point that will Overturn The Establishment but I don't know what it is.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
:stare:
idgi
I mean, I know you're trying to make some point that will Overturn The Establishment but I don't know what it is.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 12:57 AM
there is not a dearth of forest there today, the Mayans did not deforest themselves into collapse, unless and only, you cede that they were extraordinarily technologically advanced.
Adenosine
6th February 2012, 01:14 AM
there is not a dearth of forest there today, the Mayans did not deforest themselves into collapse, unless and only, you cede that they were extraordinarily technologically advanced.
I don't think they needed to deforest the whole continent, just enough that there wasn't the change in environment to encourage rain to fall on their regions.
How widespread were they anyway? Or is that another Mystery?
I don't think they needed to deforest the whole continent, just enough that there wasn't the change in environment to encourage rain to fall on their regions.
How widespread were they anyway? Or is that another Mystery?
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:18 AM
cutting down some trees did not extinct the Mayan
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:19 AM
How widespread were they anyway? Or is that another Mystery?
During the ice age the shores were our continental shelves.
During the ice age the shores were our continental shelves.
Adenosine
6th February 2012, 01:29 AM
How widespread were they anyway? Or is that another Mystery?
During the ice age the shores were our continental shelves.
I meant the Mayans, but thanks.
During the ice age the shores were our continental shelves.
I meant the Mayans, but thanks.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:31 AM
where do you think the people went when the tides rose?
Adenosine
6th February 2012, 01:32 AM
where do you think the people went when the tides rose?
How quickly do you think the ice melted?
How quickly do you think the ice melted?
borealis
6th February 2012, 01:33 AM
Jerome, the Mayans were a big deal well into the ninth century. I don't think any ice age decimated them.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:34 AM
where do you think the people went when the tides rose?
How quickly do you think the ice melted?
What are the current prediction from the IPCC abo0ut our current circumstance?
How quickly do you think the ice melted?
What are the current prediction from the IPCC abo0ut our current circumstance?
borealis
6th February 2012, 01:34 AM
I've heard speculation that it was the deforestation in favor of agriculture, which caused the drought.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
My grandfather's 300 acres of pastures and fields were without forests for about 150 years. less than sixty years later, they are all thickly forested.
Your grandfather farmed in a rainforest?
Rainforest... hmmm... I wonder why they call them that?
Just reminding Jerome that trees tend to grow in abandoned agricultural areas once the rain comes back. It was probably a long drought, wasn't a permanent one.
as we can see, s america is without forest today ..
My grandfather's 300 acres of pastures and fields were without forests for about 150 years. less than sixty years later, they are all thickly forested.
Your grandfather farmed in a rainforest?
Rainforest... hmmm... I wonder why they call them that?
Just reminding Jerome that trees tend to grow in abandoned agricultural areas once the rain comes back. It was probably a long drought, wasn't a permanent one.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:35 AM
Jerome, the Mayans were a big deal well into the ninth century. I don't think any ice age decimated them.agreed with ruminations, what do you think did
Dan B
6th February 2012, 01:39 AM
there is not a dearth of forest there today, the Mayans did not deforest themselves into collapse, unless and only, you cede that they were extraordinarily technologically advanced.
I don't think they needed to deforest the whole continent, just enough that there wasn't the change in environment to encourage rain to fall on their regions.
How widespread were they anyway? Or is that another Mystery?
The water in a rainforest is mostly recycled. It is not transient. The rain that falls is the same water that evaporated from the previous rains.
A limited amount of agriculture can take advantage of this cycle, but as land use increases, rainfall decreases.
A civilization, that does not realize this, would be likely to increase its land use to offset a decrease in production, as it has become dependent on historic production levels. It has no alternative to maintaining production levels or reducing its population and restructuring its social order, thus accelerating a process that leads to its collapse.
I don't think they needed to deforest the whole continent, just enough that there wasn't the change in environment to encourage rain to fall on their regions.
How widespread were they anyway? Or is that another Mystery?
The water in a rainforest is mostly recycled. It is not transient. The rain that falls is the same water that evaporated from the previous rains.
A limited amount of agriculture can take advantage of this cycle, but as land use increases, rainfall decreases.
A civilization, that does not realize this, would be likely to increase its land use to offset a decrease in production, as it has become dependent on historic production levels. It has no alternative to maintaining production levels or reducing its population and restructuring its social order, thus accelerating a process that leads to its collapse.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:42 AM
The water in a rainforest is mostly recycled. It is not transient. The rain that falls is the same water that evaporated from the previous rains.
No, wrong.
No, wrong.
Dan B
6th February 2012, 02:11 AM
No, wrong.
That's it?
Dude. The process is called a "water cycle". A component of that cycle is "transpiration". Transpiration is the evaporation of water during the process of photosynthesis. More leaves = more photosynthesis. More photosynthesis = more transpiration. More transpiration = more water vapor. More water vapor = more rainfall.
Without that dense vegetation, water becomes transient and leaves the area as runoff or is sequestered in the water table.
Additionally, the evaporation process cools the immediate area, thus encouraging precipitation of water that would otherwise leave the area as cloud formations.
Seriously. It's a fairly well established phenomenon.
That's it?
Dude. The process is called a "water cycle". A component of that cycle is "transpiration". Transpiration is the evaporation of water during the process of photosynthesis. More leaves = more photosynthesis. More photosynthesis = more transpiration. More transpiration = more water vapor. More water vapor = more rainfall.
Without that dense vegetation, water becomes transient and leaves the area as runoff or is sequestered in the water table.
Additionally, the evaporation process cools the immediate area, thus encouraging precipitation of water that would otherwise leave the area as cloud formations.
Seriously. It's a fairly well established phenomenon.
nick
6th February 2012, 02:19 AM
No, wrong.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 03:10 AM
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/wgifs/Watercycle.GIF
Jerome
6th February 2012, 03:10 AM
not the same water in all the arrows, water moves about the globe.
Dan B
6th February 2012, 03:41 AM
not the same water in all the arrows, water moves about the globe.
So do people, but they don't all do it to the same degree and there are certain conditions, which are known to be either conducive or prohibitive to those travels.
Deforestation affects local climate and precipitation. It's that simple.
Why are you being obtuse? Do you have some vested interest in denying the effects of deforestation?
So do people, but they don't all do it to the same degree and there are certain conditions, which are known to be either conducive or prohibitive to those travels.
Deforestation affects local climate and precipitation. It's that simple.
Why are you being obtuse? Do you have some vested interest in denying the effects of deforestation?
Jerome
6th February 2012, 03:44 AM
The Mayan collapse was not due to deforestation.
see, they would have moved, there were trees north and south.
see, they would have moved, there were trees north and south.
Dan B
6th February 2012, 04:09 AM
The Mayan collapse was not due to deforestation.
I didn't claim it was. No one knows why their civilization collapsed. The theory of an anthropogenic drought is a reasonable possibility.
see, they would have moved, there were trees north and south.
I assume the people already living there would have something to say about that.
It's not that the Mayans disappeared. Their civilization did. Apparently, isolated technologically advanced civilizations aren't all that common.
eta: Would've been nice if they had developed paper. Then they might have written down what happened. Then again, they may have been able to rebuild.
I didn't claim it was. No one knows why their civilization collapsed. The theory of an anthropogenic drought is a reasonable possibility.
see, they would have moved, there were trees north and south.
I assume the people already living there would have something to say about that.
It's not that the Mayans disappeared. Their civilization did. Apparently, isolated technologically advanced civilizations aren't all that common.
eta: Would've been nice if they had developed paper. Then they might have written down what happened. Then again, they may have been able to rebuild.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 04:27 AM
The theory of an anthropogenic drought is a reasonable possibility.
No it is not, it is ridiculous on it's face.
No it is not, it is ridiculous on it's face.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 04:29 AM
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Dan B
6th February 2012, 05:10 AM
The theory of an anthropogenic drought is a reasonable possibility.
No it is not, it is ridiculous on it's face.
You can explain to me, why that is.
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Uhmm... That is because they are actually Gua'uld landing pads?
No it is not, it is ridiculous on it's face.
You can explain to me, why that is.
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Uhmm... That is because they are actually Gua'uld landing pads?
borealis
6th February 2012, 11:50 AM
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
Teshi
6th February 2012, 12:41 PM
eta: Would've been nice if they had developed paper. Then they might have written down what happened. Then again, they may have been able to rebuild.
The Maya had paper. It was made of bark.
A handful of codices have survived, but most were burnt by the Spanish
The Maya had paper. It was made of bark.
A handful of codices have survived, but most were burnt by the Spanish
Teshi
6th February 2012, 12:47 PM
Maybe I'm missing something here, but the Mayan civilization didn't mysteriously disappear. Various city centers were abandoned at various points in history, but Mayan civilization continued. It took a couple hundred years for the Spanish to conquer all the Mayan territories, and the people descended from the Maya are still around. There are like two dozen living Mayan languages spoken even today ffs
borealis
6th February 2012, 01:02 PM
As Teshi says.
There's a lot of known history of the Mayan peoples, besides less certain prehistory. Kings' names, for example, are known going back centuries.
There's a lot of known history of the Mayan peoples, besides less certain prehistory. Kings' names, for example, are known going back centuries.
Grumps
6th February 2012, 01:02 PM
The end of the world will not happen, what will actually happen is the creation of the world.
The Scary Door Futurama 2 - YouTube
The Scary Door Futurama 2 - YouTube
borealis
6th February 2012, 01:05 PM
There are only three undisputed codices. Blame the Catholic church, whose representatives systematically destroyed them as they found them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices
Teshi
6th February 2012, 01:08 PM
Whatshisface the Domnican friar was really pissed about that, too.
eta: Fray las Casas
eta: Fray las Casas
borealis
6th February 2012, 01:22 PM
"We are not myths of the past, ruins in the jungle or zoos. We are people and we want to be respected, not to be victims of intolerance and racism."
--Rigoberta Mench'u Tum, winner of the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize.
To say that the Maya civilization disappeared is not only an inaccuracy, but a great disservice to more than 6 million Maya living today in Guatemala, Mexico and Belize. While the city-states of the Classic period lowlands may have been abandoned in the tenth century, the Maya people did not disappear any more than the Italians when the Roman Empire fell.
http://www.criscenzo.com/jaguarsun/mayanow.html
--Rigoberta Mench'u Tum, winner of the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize.
To say that the Maya civilization disappeared is not only an inaccuracy, but a great disservice to more than 6 million Maya living today in Guatemala, Mexico and Belize. While the city-states of the Classic period lowlands may have been abandoned in the tenth century, the Maya people did not disappear any more than the Italians when the Roman Empire fell.
http://www.criscenzo.com/jaguarsun/mayanow.html
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:24 PM
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
How would the stones be moved?
Here are some from Peru:
http://www.genosplace.org/Peru/Sacsahuaman/sacs.jpg
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
How would the stones be moved?
Here are some from Peru:
http://www.genosplace.org/Peru/Sacsahuaman/sacs.jpg
Teshi
6th February 2012, 01:42 PM
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
How would the stones be moved?
Here are some from Peru:
http://www.genosplace.org/Peru/Sacsahuaman/sacs.jpg
Based on the image path, your photo isn't of a Mayan site, but an Incan one :colbert:
Anyway, the Maya had a well-developed road system; you could presumably move heavy material along it using sledges or by rolling on logs, if you had sufficient labor. And earthenwork ramps would be a low-tech way to get the stones into place.
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
How would the stones be moved?
Here are some from Peru:
http://www.genosplace.org/Peru/Sacsahuaman/sacs.jpg
Based on the image path, your photo isn't of a Mayan site, but an Incan one :colbert:
Anyway, the Maya had a well-developed road system; you could presumably move heavy material along it using sledges or by rolling on logs, if you had sufficient labor. And earthenwork ramps would be a low-tech way to get the stones into place.
Jerome
6th February 2012, 01:47 PM
What roads were there to here:
http://www.culturefocus.com/peru/pictures/machu-picchu-24small.jpg
http://www.culturefocus.com/peru/pictures/machu-picchu-24small.jpg
Teshi
6th February 2012, 01:52 PM
That is Machu Picchu, genius, and it's also Incan.
The quarries for the stones used in its construction are right there on the mountain.
Also, there was a road leading to Machu Picchu. It's still there...tourists hike it all the time
The quarries for the stones used in its construction are right there on the mountain.
Also, there was a road leading to Machu Picchu. It's still there...tourists hike it all the time
borealis
6th February 2012, 02:12 PM
Jerome, you could just try reading a book about ancient construction engineering.
It's difficult to Google that kind of info online because you have to sift through thousands of crap ' ancient aliens' type sites.
There are well known methods for raising and lifting and placing large stone blocks without the need of modern technology. Levers, rollers, inclined planes, crib work, dirt platforms, ropes and pulleys, are all tools that can be used to raise and place large heavy weights.
There's a youtube vid I've seen where one guy demonstrates how to raise a Stonehenge size block using very little manpower and only tools available in prehiistory. Ancient peoples weren't any more stupid than we are, and quite capable of figuring out how to do what they wanted with the tools they had.
It's difficult to Google that kind of info online because you have to sift through thousands of crap ' ancient aliens' type sites.
There are well known methods for raising and lifting and placing large stone blocks without the need of modern technology. Levers, rollers, inclined planes, crib work, dirt platforms, ropes and pulleys, are all tools that can be used to raise and place large heavy weights.
There's a youtube vid I've seen where one guy demonstrates how to raise a Stonehenge size block using very little manpower and only tools available in prehiistory. Ancient peoples weren't any more stupid than we are, and quite capable of figuring out how to do what they wanted with the tools they had.
Dan B
6th February 2012, 03:28 PM
I was wrong to say that the Mayan civilization disappeared or that they did not have books.
That does not however, speak to a pre-Columbian collapse of that civilization or the cause of that collapse.
Books, language, and surviving civilization:
PBS Nova
NASA satellites used to image previously undetected Maya infrastructure:
PBS Nova Sciencenow (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/maya.html)
That does not however, speak to a pre-Columbian collapse of that civilization or the cause of that collapse.
Books, language, and surviving civilization:
PBS Nova
NASA satellites used to image previously undetected Maya infrastructure:
PBS Nova Sciencenow (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/maya.html)
borealis
6th February 2012, 04:19 PM
Thanks for the links, Dan.
borealis
6th February 2012, 04:24 PM
Nice NASA pic.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6293
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6293
Dan B
7th February 2012, 01:50 AM
Thanks for the links, Dan.
Welcome.
Still waiting for JDG to explain why, what I interpret as a reasonable possibility, is ridiculous on its face.
Welcome.
Still waiting for JDG to explain why, what I interpret as a reasonable possibility, is ridiculous on its face.
Jerome
7th February 2012, 01:59 AM
Thanks for the links, Dan.
Welcome.
Still waiting for JDG to explain why, what I interpret as a reasonable possibility, is ridiculous on its face.
There is absolutely no evidence that that region of the world has at any point been deforested.
Welcome.
Still waiting for JDG to explain why, what I interpret as a reasonable possibility, is ridiculous on its face.
There is absolutely no evidence that that region of the world has at any point been deforested.
Jerome
7th February 2012, 02:01 AM
The quarries for the stones used in its construction are right there on the mountain.
Where?
Where?
Jerome
7th February 2012, 02:10 AM
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
Many of the blocks are just too massive, this phenomenon of ancient massive blocks are seen all over the world.
http://www.popscreen.com/assets/thumbs/v/original/8372753vOr_o.jpg
We need today some of the largest cranes in the world to move this, and this is not near the largest stones found.
Also, how was it cut out from the underneath side?
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
Many of the blocks are just too massive, this phenomenon of ancient massive blocks are seen all over the world.
http://www.popscreen.com/assets/thumbs/v/original/8372753vOr_o.jpg
We need today some of the largest cranes in the world to move this, and this is not near the largest stones found.
Also, how was it cut out from the underneath side?
Teshi
7th February 2012, 02:45 AM
The quarries for the stones used in its construction are right there on the mountain.
Where?
IIRC the majority of the stone actually came from the sites where the building occurred; Machu Picchu's construction is mostly composed of comparatively small pieces of stone, not the huge slabs you see in edifices elsewhere, and a lot of those stones they used came from the process of leveling and preparing the surfaces on which they built. Been a while since I spent any time with the topic so I could be off on some details but I think that's pretty much it
Even from touristy photos you should be able to see that the bare stone of the mountains looks a whole lot like the stones used in the buildings
Where?
IIRC the majority of the stone actually came from the sites where the building occurred; Machu Picchu's construction is mostly composed of comparatively small pieces of stone, not the huge slabs you see in edifices elsewhere, and a lot of those stones they used came from the process of leveling and preparing the surfaces on which they built. Been a while since I spent any time with the topic so I could be off on some details but I think that's pretty much it
Even from touristy photos you should be able to see that the bare stone of the mountains looks a whole lot like the stones used in the buildings
ericv00
7th February 2012, 03:28 AM
JEROME. Nice work! You derailed an apocalypse thread. Hahaha!
borealis
7th February 2012, 04:55 AM
Do you realize that we currently can not make their stone pyramids?
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
Many of the blocks are just too massive, this phenomenon of ancient massive blocks are seen all over the world.
http://www.popscreen.com/assets/thumbs/v/original/8372753vOr_o.jpg
We need today some of the largest cranes in the world to move this, and this is not near the largest stones found.
Also, how was it cut out from the underneath side?
I already listed ways people have moved and raised massive stones.
As for the undercuttung, most likely chisels, drills, and wood wedges which are soaked with water after insertion in the holes made by those tools. It's stone, not adamantium. Most stone, especially what one might choose for building, splits fairly easily and predictably.
Yes we could, if we had any desire to build such things and wanted to pay experienced stone masons to spend enormous amounts of time on each and every stone.
What about them makes you think a modern artisan couldn't reproduce the kind of work done by Mayans?
Many of the blocks are just too massive, this phenomenon of ancient massive blocks are seen all over the world.
http://www.popscreen.com/assets/thumbs/v/original/8372753vOr_o.jpg
We need today some of the largest cranes in the world to move this, and this is not near the largest stones found.
Also, how was it cut out from the underneath side?
I already listed ways people have moved and raised massive stones.
As for the undercuttung, most likely chisels, drills, and wood wedges which are soaked with water after insertion in the holes made by those tools. It's stone, not adamantium. Most stone, especially what one might choose for building, splits fairly easily and predictably.
Jerome
7th February 2012, 12:13 PM
How is the middle underneath chiseled out with all that weight above, they certainty don't chisel out and build a wood frame to hold the weight of 1,200 tons.
borealis
7th February 2012, 01:06 PM
Like this:
The carving was done on granite directly on the surface of the stone at the ground, by cutting four sides. It is now known that the tools employed for carving the granite were small balls of diorite. Once the sides were cut off, the stone piece had to be separated from the ground. A series of perforations were made, again using diorite tools. Obelisks made out of softer rock other than granite (i.e. sandstone) were carved with wooden spikes. These perforations were then filled with wood and these wood pieces were water saturated. The small pieces of wood expanded with the humidity breaking the separations between successive perforations and then effectively separating the carved piece from its bed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_making_technology_in_ancient_Egypt
The carving was done on granite directly on the surface of the stone at the ground, by cutting four sides. It is now known that the tools employed for carving the granite were small balls of diorite. Once the sides were cut off, the stone piece had to be separated from the ground. A series of perforations were made, again using diorite tools. Obelisks made out of softer rock other than granite (i.e. sandstone) were carved with wooden spikes. These perforations were then filled with wood and these wood pieces were water saturated. The small pieces of wood expanded with the humidity breaking the separations between successive perforations and then effectively separating the carved piece from its bed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_making_technology_in_ancient_Egypt
Jerome
7th February 2012, 01:29 PM
That does not hold for the massive stones, expanding wood will not lift the weight of 1,200 tons.
nick
7th February 2012, 01:33 PM
twss
borealis
7th February 2012, 01:47 PM
That does not hold for the massive stones, expanding wood will not lift the weight of 1,200 tons.
Jerome, it's not the wood that does the work, it's the water pressure. And of course it works. People still sometimes use this method to break stone.
Jerome, it's not the wood that does the work, it's the water pressure. And of course it works. People still sometimes use this method to break stone.
Jerome
7th February 2012, 10:32 PM
That does not hold for the massive stones, expanding wood will not lift the weight of 1,200 tons.
Jerome, it's not the wood that does the work, it's the water pressure. And of course it works. People still sometimes use this method to break stone.
I understand how the system works. :rolleyes:
1,200 tons?
What percentage of the base must be cutout before this method can break the stone from the ground?
Jerome, it's not the wood that does the work, it's the water pressure. And of course it works. People still sometimes use this method to break stone.
I understand how the system works. :rolleyes:
1,200 tons?
What percentage of the base must be cutout before this method can break the stone from the ground?
borealis
7th February 2012, 10:42 PM
That does not hold for the massive stones, expanding wood will not lift the weight of 1,200 tons.
Jerome, it's not the wood that does the work, it's the water pressure. And of course it works. People still sometimes use this method to break stone.
I understand how the system works. :rolleyes:
1,200 tons?
What percentage of the base must be cutout before this method can break the stone from the ground?
Ask a stone mason? or an engineer?
Jerome, at least one of the links I gave you describes one of those massive obelisks which is not entirely cut out. It's still in the quarry. The quarry itself retains debris from other other massive stone cuts. The evidence is there, in the marks on the cut stone, in the kinds of debris, in the preserved tool marks.
Your disbelief is bizarre. Have you never done any kind of hands on work with basic tools? Learned how to deal with hard or tough materials? These are just larger projects.
Wtf, do you think.... space aliens... did it?
Jerome, it's not the wood that does the work, it's the water pressure. And of course it works. People still sometimes use this method to break stone.
I understand how the system works. :rolleyes:
1,200 tons?
What percentage of the base must be cutout before this method can break the stone from the ground?
Ask a stone mason? or an engineer?
Jerome, at least one of the links I gave you describes one of those massive obelisks which is not entirely cut out. It's still in the quarry. The quarry itself retains debris from other other massive stone cuts. The evidence is there, in the marks on the cut stone, in the kinds of debris, in the preserved tool marks.
Your disbelief is bizarre. Have you never done any kind of hands on work with basic tools? Learned how to deal with hard or tough materials? These are just larger projects.
Wtf, do you think.... space aliens... did it?
Dan B
7th February 2012, 11:10 PM
There is absolutely no evidence that that region of the world has at any point been deforested.
You set the bar pretty low.
Possible role of climate in the collapse of Classic Mays civilization (http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic867457.files/Hodell-Climate-Collapse-Maya.pdf).
Early agriculture in the Maya Lowlands (http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/hageman/anth374/early.pdf).
You set the bar pretty low.
Possible role of climate in the collapse of Classic Mays civilization (http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic867457.files/Hodell-Climate-Collapse-Maya.pdf).
Early agriculture in the Maya Lowlands (http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/hageman/anth374/early.pdf).
Jerome
7th February 2012, 11:14 PM
Jerome, at least one of the links I gave you describes one of those massive obelisks which is not entirely cut out. It's still in the quarry. The quarry itself retains debris from other other massive stone cuts. The evidence is there, in the marks on the cut stone, in the kinds of debris, in the preserved tool marks.
The evidence that it happened is there, I agree, the contention is how it happened on such large scales. 2,400,000 lbs. worth
btw, it is not necessary to have the answer to question the questionable answer given.
The evidence that it happened is there, I agree, the contention is how it happened on such large scales. 2,400,000 lbs. worth
btw, it is not necessary to have the answer to question the questionable answer given.
Jerome
7th February 2012, 11:15 PM
These are just larger projects.
it is exponential
it is exponential
Jerome
7th February 2012, 11:19 PM
Possible role of climate in the collapse of Classic Mays civilization (http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic867457.files/Hodell-Climate-Collapse-Maya.pdf).
That is little more than speculation based upon seemingly potential correlations which in themselves are so small as to be laughable as a cause of an advanced civilization collapse.
That is little more than speculation based upon seemingly potential correlations which in themselves are so small as to be laughable as a cause of an advanced civilization collapse.
Jerome
7th February 2012, 11:19 PM
Dan, I do appreciate the links. :blinksmile:
borealis
7th February 2012, 11:21 PM
Jerome, at least one of the links I gave you describes one of those massive obelisks which is not entirely cut out. It's still in the quarry. The quarry itself retains debris from other other massive stone cuts. The evidence is there, in the marks on the cut stone, in the kinds of debris, in the preserved tool marks.
The evidence that it happened is there, I agree, the contention is how it happened on such large scales. 2,400,000 lbs. worth
btw, it is not necessary to have the answer to question the questionable answer given.
Don't you give those people any credit at all? No credible trade craftsman would question that such feats could be produced using basic tools, ingenuity, and knowledge of ones materials and simple engineering principles.
Here's a guy who can move a 22,000 rock using one man power. And he's just fooling around.
Building Stonehenge - This Man can Move Anything - YouTube
The evidence that it happened is there, I agree, the contention is how it happened on such large scales. 2,400,000 lbs. worth
btw, it is not necessary to have the answer to question the questionable answer given.
Don't you give those people any credit at all? No credible trade craftsman would question that such feats could be produced using basic tools, ingenuity, and knowledge of ones materials and simple engineering principles.
Here's a guy who can move a 22,000 rock using one man power. And he's just fooling around.
Building Stonehenge - This Man can Move Anything - YouTube
Dan B
7th February 2012, 11:29 PM
That is little more than speculation based upon seemingly potential correlations which in themselves are so small as to be laughable as a cause of an advanced civilization collapse.
It's evidence. I've stated from the start that it is not conclusive.
Dan, I do appreciate the links. :blinksmile:
Always nice to be appreciated. :]
It's evidence. I've stated from the start that it is not conclusive.
Dan, I do appreciate the links. :blinksmile:
Always nice to be appreciated. :]
Jerome
7th February 2012, 11:34 PM
22,000 does not equal 2,400,000
There is a point at which it can not be done.
There is a point at which it can not be done.
Jerome
7th February 2012, 11:38 PM
The tools and the man power become too large a need as to not be able to physically fit the area and the object to be moved.
Take a square (2d), now the square is of X size, you would agree that an infinite number of defined objects can not touch and effect the square.
Take a square (2d), now the square is of X size, you would agree that an infinite number of defined objects can not touch and effect the square.
CAS
14th July 2012, 03:13 PM
RE: ended on 21 December 2012?
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrific http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=15211#post15211)
How many of you believe the world will be ended on 21 December 2012??
End of the world 2012 is media hype.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrific http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=15211#post15211)
How many of you believe the world will be ended on 21 December 2012??
End of the world 2012 is media hype.
CAS
14th July 2012, 03:30 PM
How many of you believe the world will be ended on 21 December 2012??
According to Wiki the Mayans did not believe it to be an end but a beginning of a new age of consciousness. Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon
Several prominent individuals representing Maya of Guatemala decried the suggestion that the world ends on b'ak'tun 13. Ricardo Cajas, president of the Colectivo de Organizaciones Indígenas de Guatemala, said the date did not represent an end of humanity or fulfillment of the catastrophic prophecies found in the Maya Chilam Balam, but that the new cycle, "supposes changes in human consciousness". Martín Sacalxot of Procurador de los Derechos Humanos (Guatemala's Human Rights Ombudsman, PDH) said that end of the calendar has nothing to do with the end of the world or the year 2012.
Over the course of 25,800 years, a period often called a Great Year, the Sun's path completes a full, 360-degree backward rotation through the zodiac.[62] In Western astrological traditions, precession is measured from the March equinox, or the point at which the Sun is exactly halfway between its lowest and highest points in the sky. Presently, the Sun's March equinox position is in the constellation Pisces and is moving back into Aquarius. This signals the end of one astrological age (the Age of Pisces) and the beginning of another (the Age of Aquarius).[63]
According to Jenkins, precession will align the Sun precisely with the galactic equator at the 2012 winter solstice.[71] Jenkins claimed that the classical Maya anticipated this conjunction and celebrated it as the harbinger of a profound spiritual transition for mankind.
According to Wiki the Mayans did not believe it to be an end but a beginning of a new age of consciousness. Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon
Several prominent individuals representing Maya of Guatemala decried the suggestion that the world ends on b'ak'tun 13. Ricardo Cajas, president of the Colectivo de Organizaciones Indígenas de Guatemala, said the date did not represent an end of humanity or fulfillment of the catastrophic prophecies found in the Maya Chilam Balam, but that the new cycle, "supposes changes in human consciousness". Martín Sacalxot of Procurador de los Derechos Humanos (Guatemala's Human Rights Ombudsman, PDH) said that end of the calendar has nothing to do with the end of the world or the year 2012.
Over the course of 25,800 years, a period often called a Great Year, the Sun's path completes a full, 360-degree backward rotation through the zodiac.[62] In Western astrological traditions, precession is measured from the March equinox, or the point at which the Sun is exactly halfway between its lowest and highest points in the sky. Presently, the Sun's March equinox position is in the constellation Pisces and is moving back into Aquarius. This signals the end of one astrological age (the Age of Pisces) and the beginning of another (the Age of Aquarius).[63]
According to Jenkins, precession will align the Sun precisely with the galactic equator at the 2012 winter solstice.[71] Jenkins claimed that the classical Maya anticipated this conjunction and celebrated it as the harbinger of a profound spiritual transition for mankind.
MondoVman
14th July 2012, 11:41 PM
Here's a guy who can move a 22,000 rock using one man power. And he's just fooling around.
Here's a better (normal) quality video of this guy Wally Wallington:
Building Stonehenge - Wally Wallington Can Move Anything! - YouTube
Here's a better (normal) quality video of this guy Wally Wallington:
Building Stonehenge - Wally Wallington Can Move Anything! - YouTube
Jerome
14th July 2012, 11:53 PM
Here's a guy who can move a 22,000 rock using one man power. And he's just fooling around.Here's a better (normal) quality video of this guy Wally Wallington:
We are all aware that some small scale tasks can be preformed, you need to example the most spectacular of the tasks to have any claim to knowledge of the process.
We are all aware that some small scale tasks can be preformed, you need to example the most spectacular of the tasks to have any claim to knowledge of the process.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét