Space Elevator Stood In Morrocco?

[Quelquechosedautre]

Was Jacob's Ladder really a teleport transporter, Star Trek style? Or was it a Space Elevator?

Consider, Atlas was supposed to hold up the Sky and is associated with the Atlas Mountains - would this not comply with a vast and hugely strong structure which might have reached to the sky as a space elevator?. In the labours of Hercules, Atlas is associated with the "Golden Apples", now widely associated with being oranges which grew also in Morrocco. Atlas was ALSO said to be a Titan, one of the Ancient Gods that Zeus overthrew. If a "mutiny" amongst the ET's is what various religions are alluding to, could it be that Zeus allowed the Elevator to remain in place whist all the other craft and links to the ET overlords were destroyed or abandoned?

Morrocco is also associated with the "Pillars Of Hercules" which are still the symbol of American Currency to this day - the "S" actually being a motto on a sheet wrapped around the two pillars. Why is this symbol so, so important to the AMerican and Masonic symbolism?

Is Jacob's Ladder an ET Space Elevator that was once located in the Atlas mountains in Morrocco?

Finally consider, areas most closely associated with Ancient Aliens where their religions claim that they dwelt with the people directly, are commonly associated with human sacrifice. Even in the Bible, Abraham is called on to sacrifice his own son. Carthage, "just up the street" was a major centre of child sacrifice.

[Coomba98]

Quelquechosedautre,

Hows it going.

Atlas was not a titan. He was the son of Poseidon, who was the elder brother of Zeus. Zeus being the youngest of the Gods fathered by Cronus. who is a titan.

Atlas is just like Hercules. Half God by a male god and half human by female human. (although this is technically 1/3 God and 2/3's Human as proclaimed by Gilgamesh who said he was 2/3's god because his
mother was a Godess and father a Human. Pretty sure Hercules states the same. aka im 1/3 god. but I cannot locate these texts. (not now in the past)

And we are only now just learning DNA properties. Males give around 50% of their nuDNA however the females give the same % if not slightly more nuDNA 'but' they also provide the mtDNA which now answers the questions why these people said what they said about the partial divinity.

Coomba98

[Moon]

Quelquechosedautre,

Hows it going.

Atlas was not a titan. He was the son of Poseidon, who was the elder brother of Zeus. Zeus being the youngest of the Gods fathered by Cronus. who is a titan.

Atlas is just like Hercules. Half God by a male god and half human by female human. (although this is technically 1/3 God and 2/3's Human as proclaimed by Gilgamesh who said he was 2/3's god because his
mother was a Godess and father a Human. Pretty sure Hercules states the same. aka im 1/3 god. but I cannot locate these texts. (not now in the past)

And we are only now just learning DNA properties. Males give around 50% of their nuDNA however the females give the same % if not slightly more nuDNA 'but' they also provide the mtDNA which now answers the questions why these people said what they said about the partial divinity.

Coomba98

Actually, Atlas was a Titan and a very early one at that. Iapetus and Asia (Klymene) were his parents (also Titans). Prometheus was his brother.

[Coomba98]

Max,
Hay Max, You smell that? -sniff, sniff- Think you may have burnt me. lol.

Doh!!

You are correct Atlas was a Titan.

Atlas was the son of the Titan Lapetus and the Oceanid Asia[2] or Klyménē. ( As per wiki ).

I was thinking of a different Atlas.

According to Plato, the first king of Atlantis was also named Atlas, but that Atlas was a son of Poseidon and the mortal woman Cleito.[13] A euhemerist origin for Atlas was as a legendary Atlas, king of Mauretania, an expert astronomer. ( As per wiki )

Should have done a google search before posting. Stupid me. Seeing the statues of Atlas holding the Earth on his shoulders..... arrrgh. Stupid brain!


Quelquechosedautre,

Ignore my post. Im referring to a different Atlas who has nothing to do with your thread. Apologies.

Coomba98

[Quelquechosedautre]

If a fspace elevator, many miles high, deteriorated and then fell over, westwards into the ocean, would that not also give a good reason for the ancient humans to name the ocean after Atlas, the one who was supposed to keep it up?

[Gizmo]

guess we are getting a new one http://geeks.thedailywh.at/2012/02/22/s ... f-the-day/

[Moon]

The elevator ride would take seven days to go 60,000 miles to the destination.

Here is an image of the space elevator:



One of the comments about holding a fart for seven days was hilarious!

[Quelquechosedautre]

Firstly, there is no reason why it would be ESSENTIAL to have a 60.000 miles space elevator. Just to get it above the atmosphere, say 20 miles would be enough. High buoyancy and, say, solar powered propulsion could keep it up easily. If this was the case, any spacecraft could dock with it.

Also, consider, images of angel show no wings until the 5th Century. Would not a space elevator be an easier way to travel than backpacks with limited fuel?

[homeworld]

If you think about it, why would an alien race build a space elevator? If they are capable of interstellar travel they would probably have something more advanced and easier to deploy like a teleporter. Jacob`s ladder could have been a platform which would "shoot out" the person standing on it to the ship in orbit. 10 000 years ago people didn`t have the word "teleport" so they just used ladder.
This is my best guess haha

[Pons Asinorum]

The minimum altitude for a space elevator is dependent on the altitude of geostationary orbit plus the center-of-mass of the system.

A geostationary orbit is one where a satellite (sat) would orbit at the same speed as the rotation of the Earth. In effect, the sat would always be above the same point of the the surface of the Earth (ie, the sat would be "stationary" relative to a spot on the surface of the Earth). This occurs at an altitude of about 22,300 mile.

By attaching a cable between such a sat and the Earth, one would have the basis for a space elevator, however, taking the mass of the cable into account, the center-of-mass of this system is below the geostationary altitude and its weight would cause it to fall toward the Earth.

To fix that without constant propulsion, the center-of-mass would need to be at the geostationary altitude. One simple way to do this is to extend the cable to an even higher altitude. This forms a counterweight or "upper" anchor.

The altitude of the this anchor (or even anchors) depends on the total mass of the system. The terms would have to balance below and above the geostationary altitude.

Here is a picture from wikipedia:


--

Once such a system is in place, a climb-vehicle could travel along the cable and allow disembarkation at any altitude.

In principle, as one vehicle ascends another might descend (on a separate cable perhpas) and during that descent, it can convert kinetic energy into (say) electrical energy that can be used for the ascending vehicle, thus greatly reducing the energy costs to get into orbit. Once there, the energy cost to travel to the Moon or Mars is comparable to airline energy budgets here on Earth.

Obviously the technical challenges would be enormous, but worth it because the biggest barrier to exploring space and exploiting its resources is cost. The biggest cost factor is, by far, getting from the surface of the earth to an earth-orbit.

As far as ancient astronauts doing something like this, Homeworld's point seems quite correct, as a starfaring species would likely have solved problems regarding energy-budgets vs space-propulsion with technology far beyond anything we have today.

[Ace Rimmer]

How about a Space Escalator.

[yerock III stoneman]

256,000th floor, please.
..

[Pons Asinorum]

How about a Space Escalator.

Yeah, that would be cool, but they can't figure out how to keep people's used gum from clogging the works

[Dreamwalker]

“And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!”

Jacob describes something which seems to be physical, on which he saw angels ascending and descending. Had he seen a teleporter, he would have seen angels appearing and disapearing, so in this case I’ll go along with the idea of a space elevator.

Arthur C Clarke wrote an excellent novel about the building of a Space Elevator anchored at Sri Lanka, which is near the equator. The Novel was titled The Fountains of Paradise, considered to be one of his best and well worth a read. Several of his novels include humanity being guided or encountering an elder race.

[Quelquechosedautre]

Actually NO!!!

By your own diagram, a space elevator would NOT have to be 60,000 miles high and take 7 days to get there.

All it needs is and ANCHOR that is 0,000 miles high. The "getting-oof-into-the-spaceship" bit could be just 20 miles up the chain. Once above the atmosphere, there is no reason to force the occupants of the elevator to have to go up the remaining 59,980 Miles.

ALSO, regarding Jacob Ladder... Have you ever thought of the catastrohy if the cable breaks? You are 19 MIles up when suddenly SNAP and the elevator has absolutely F**K ALL keeping it up? The one simple way to ensure safety for a space elevator is to have TWO lines in order to ensure that if one breaks, the other holds. HOWEVER, over a 60,000 MILES run, the most miniscule turbulence or breeze would cause the two cables to rip the elevator car into two. To solve this is simple, at regular intervals, have cables like railway connecting the two cables to prevent intra-cable turbulence.

Result? A cable run that would look IDENTICAL to a ladder.

[Pons Asinorum]

Firstly, there is no reason why it would be ESSENTIAL to have a 60.000 miles space elevator.

If the center-of-mass of the entire space-elevator system is below the geostationary altitude (about 22,300 miles), then it would fall back to the Earth, as explained in my prior comment. Therefore, it is not possible to build a 20-mile high space-elevator, based on the principles cited.

(The cable would simply collapse and fall down, exactly the same as if one tried to vertically stretch a rope 20-ft or 20-miles -- it would fall unless there is an opposing force "pulling" on it from above.)

All it needs is and ANCHOR that is 0,000 miles high. The "getting-oof-into-the-spaceship" bit could be just 20 miles up the chain. Once above the atmosphere, there is no reason to force the occupants of the elevator to have to go up the remaining 59,980 Miles.

Correct; that is why I stated: "Once such a system is in place, a climb-vehicle could travel along the cable and allow disembarkation at any altitude."

By your own diagram, a space elevator would NOT have to be 60,000 miles high and take 7 days to get there.

For further clarification:

• It is not my diagram, please note the clever link to Wikipedia.
• the cable height would have to be above 22,300 miles (as previously explained), but its total height would be largely dependent on the mass of the cables/system.
• the diagram does not preclude the need for the climb-vehicle to ascend to the full height (as the word "elevator" logically implies).
• to state the obvious: In principle, one could stop and leave the climb-vehicle (aka, elevator) at any altitude and, as you and I pointed out, would not need to travel the full length of the cable.

ALSO, regarding Jacob Ladder... Have you ever thought of the catastrohy if the cable breaks? You are 19 MIles up when suddenly SNAP and the elevator has absolutely F**K ALL keeping it up?

Also, for consideration -- If the cable were to break and the climb-vehicle came free:

• above the geostationary altitude, it would travel away from the Earth
• below the geostationary altitude, it would travel toward the Earth.
• at the geostationary altitude, it would remain there (all other forces being equal).

--

I would like to second Dreamwalker's reference to Arthur C Clarke's novel, The Fountains of Paradise. It is an excellent book illustrating the engineering of a space-elevator in a detailed manner. It is a science fiction book, but it was based on accurate math and physics.

[Quelquechosedautre]

The centre of mass would not need to be at 20 miles, merely the drop-off point. A cable etc with a heavy mass to counterbalance would be enough. As a result it would be far easier to build as the first 2p0 miles would be high-tech and the last 55,800 miles just a big cable and a fat lump of lead/captured asteriod etc at the end of it.

Also, if the car was to travel only the first 20 miles then it would always be below the centre of gravity. HOWEVER, my point is misunderstood. Like a cable car in the Alps, once the cable snaps, there is then two parts of cable and a car NO CONNECTED TO ANYTHING in MID0AIR/MID-SPACE unsupported and for this reason it would fall.

[Pons Asinorum]

The centre of mass would not need to be at 20 miles, merely the drop-off point.

Right; we are beating a dead horse.

A cable etc with a heavy mass to counterbalance would be enough.

Correct.

As a result it would be far easier to build as the first 2p0 miles would be high-tech and the last 55,800 miles just a big cable and a fat lump of lead/captured asteriod etc at the end of it.

In principle that is true, but the nature of the cable must be able to handle the stress loads of its own weight. Steel, for example, would collapse under its own weight. Thus a light-weight, high-tensile-strength cable that can exist in lengths well over 22,300 miles would be needed in practice (such a material is not publicly known to exist, yet -- as far as I know).

The "fat lump" of mass could actually counterbalance the system just a mile (or less) over the geostationary altitude (far less than 60k miles), but that may necessitate a considerable mass and an even more exotic cable material to handle the stress loads. In the end, it may be easier just to extend the cable (not sure how the 60,000 mile distance was calculated, but if only the center-of-mass need be considered, the minimum total distance of such a cable would be 44.6 k miles or so, and a fat lump of mass could shorten that distance as well).

Also, if the car was to travel only the first 20 miles then it would always be below the centre of gravity. HOWEVER, my point is misunderstood. Like a cable car in the Alps, once the cable snaps, there is then two parts of cable and a car NO CONNECTED TO ANYTHING in MID0AIR/MID-SPACE unsupported and for this reason it would fall.

Correct, there would be three distinct and unconnected structures, each having their own center-of-gravity (COG): the cable attached to the earth, the climb vehicle, and the counterbalance (with any attached cable) in space.

As outlined in you scenario above, there are three results for each structure:

The COG of the climb-vehicle is well below the geostationary altitude, so it would fall toward the earth.

The COG of the earth-attached cable is below the geostationary altitude, so it too, would fall toward the earth.

The COG of the counterbalance is above the geostationary altitude, so it would fall away from the earth.

--

To change the scenario a bit, if the climb-vehicle were above the geostationary altitude (about 22.3k miles) when it became separated from the cable, it would fly off into space. Indeed, this is another proposed use of the space elevator: as a launch platform for space probes and ships. It would essentially fling the ship into space.