Archaeologist sees Bosnia stone sphere as the most massive in Europe

April 17, 2016 by Nancy Owano weblog
Credit: Sam Osmanagich

An archaeologist is looking at a rock with great interest, a sphere unearthed in a forest, believed to be part of ancient civilization. Or is it just a very big rock?

A stone ball in Podubravlje village near Zavidovici, Bosnia and Herzegovina was seen earlier this month, in the ground, in a forest.

What can it tell us? Archaeologist Sam Osmanagich, who called his Bosnian stone ball the most massive in Europe, has some interesting answers.

"I've been researching prehistoric stone ball phenomenon for 15 years," he blogged last month.
"By the mid of March 2016, it became obvious that the most massive stone ball in Europe has been discovered. Name of the location is village Podubravlje."

He said actually less than half of the ball is uncovered. "Preliminary results show the radius to be between 1.2 – 1.5 meters. Materials have not been analyzed yet. However, brown and red color of the ball point to very high content of the iron. So, the density has to be very high, close to the iron which is 7,8 kg/m3. If we take value of only 5 kg/c.c. we have all the elements for the preliminary calculation of the mass. Mass comes to be over 30 tons!"

Why does he view this discovery as significant? "First, it would be another proof that Southern Europe, Balkan and Bosnia in particular, were home for advanced civilizations from distant past and we have no written records about them. Secondly, they had high technology, different than ours. Finally, they knew the power of geometrical shapes, because the sphere is one of the most powerful shapes along with pyramidal and conical shapes. No wonder, that pyramids and tumulus phenomena can also be found in Bosnia."

News.com.au said Osmanagich had examined granite stone balls in southern Costa Rica, volcanic stone spheres in western Mexico and Easter Island, and then turned his attention to Bosnia.

If the huge stone in Bosnia is found to be hewn by human hands, it would be the largest man-made stone ball ever found - twice as heavy as the Costa Rican ones, said MailOnline.

Do other experts see the formation as proof of an which thrived there? Voice of America reported that some scientists said the rock was likely a natural formation and not a human construct.

Experts were quoted in MailOnline as saying they believed the boulder was not man made.

A lecturer at the University of Manchester School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences told MailOnline that the spherical stone may be an example of concretion. This is when a compact mass of rock is formed by the precipitation of natural mineral cement within the spaces between sediment grains. The result is often spherical in shape, with the process forming the famed Koutu boulders in New Zealand.

Experts at the Geological Society, according to MailOnline, said the round shape of the rock could come from spheroidal weathering. This is a type of weathering affecting jointed bedrock. The result is formation of concentric or spherical layers of highly decayed rock.

Explore further: Prehistoric rock art engraving discovered in Brecon Beacons

Related Stories

Prehistoric rock art engraving discovered in Brecon Beacons

March 10, 2014

(Phys.org) —A large stone containing engraved Bronze Age rock art has been found by a national park geologist in the Brecon Beacons and confirmed as the first prehistoric rock engraved panel to be discovered in the region.

Eastern Oregon dig uncovers ancient stone tool

March 5, 2015

Archaeologists have uncovered a stone tool at an ancient rock shelter in the high desert of eastern Oregon that could turn out to be older than any known site of human occupation in western North America.

Mexico unearths Spanish priest's ancient tombstone

April 14, 2016

Engineers installing lampposts in Mexico City's historic center have discovered a stone slab covering the tomb of one of the first Catholic priests following the 1519-1521 Spanish conquest.

Researchers claim to have found origin of Blarney Stone

March 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers at Scotland's University of Glasgow's Hunterian Museum believe they have solved the mystery of the origin of the famed Blarney Stone—it came from the area surrounding Blarney Castle in ...

Chemical weathering controls erosion rates in rivers

April 14, 2016

Chemical weathering can control how susceptible bedrock in river beds is to erosion, according to new research. In addition to explaining how climate can influence landscape erosion rates, the results also may improve scientists' ...

Recommended for you

Study: Early Americas girl 'Naia' may have been young mother

March 30, 2017

More details have emerged about one of the oldest sets of human remains found in the Americas, a young woman nicknamed "Naia" whose nearly complete skeleton was discovered in 2007 in a water-filled cave in Mexico's Yucatan ...

103 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

elviin
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2016
Is it a trailer for a new movie from Sacha Baron Cohen about archeologists? It has been unearthed only about 30% and they start to talk about civilizations and busing people to the place. It could be a giant stone ball. It could be created by an ancient ball worshippers but still it should be close to 100% unearthed before any strong claims are being made.
ThomasQuinn
4.4 / 5 (20) Apr 17, 2016
If you're going to demonstrate that it's man-made, you're going to have to find some kind of evidence of tool-use. Think chisel-marks or the likes. Until you can do that, it's just a nice hypothesis, although remarks like "they had high technology, different than ours" trigger my inbuilt Von Däniken-alarm.
AKron
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
An ancient advanced civilization that left no trace except stone balls? How often does that happen?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
Bocci balls or marbles for giants...:-)
Shootist
2.2 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
An ancient advanced civilization that left no trace except stone balls? How often does that happen?


There are a number of "missing" civilizations. Google Late Bronze Age collapse.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
Obviously a fossilized spare mag-lev rubber ball tyre, left on the side of the road
JongDan
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
Is it a trailer for a new movie from Sacha Baron Cohen about archeologists? It has been unearthed only about 30% and they start to talk about civilizations and busing people to the place. It could be a giant stone ball. It could be created by an ancient ball worshippers but still it should be close to 100% unearthed before any strong claims are being made.

You apparently haven't heard of the guy before, he also declared a hill in Bosnia an ancient 10k+ years old pyramid. I think it's already 10 years since.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
Balls!

And I am pleased to see the article author thought the same and got 2nd opinion. Using color as predictive of the content, yet alone the entire content!? Same idiocy goes with form, which depends on many factors as described in the article.

@elvin: Amateur, wanna-be 'scientists' or 'scientists' who publish in vanity presses or as of yet little published scientists often describe themselves as scientists. In the last case it is even true, but not really diagnostic of quality as of yet.

And of course, 1 % of scientists are known to be plagiarizers, kooks, et cetera, as in every other area of human activities.

So, the reader beware, and keep your skeptic shields up as you approach dangerous subjects! ;-)

@Dan: Oh, it's _that_ guy! Indeed: https://en.wikipe...gi%C4%87
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2016
mainstream science deals only with reproducible facts and it avoids anomalies instinctively and systematically
@ZEPHIR
blatant false claim ( see: http://www.auburn...ion.html )
science advances by studying the anomolies and developing hypothesis and testing said hypothesis to either prove or falsify it... you know, like the falsification of your daw/aw eather crap:
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

(and i would answer the other thread, but it's not letting posters from my area- site problems)

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true with time, z
before you continue to promote a blatantly false claim like daw/aw, perhaps you should consider this: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
Only when they're occurring regularly
@ZEPHIR
are you trying to be as blatantly false as possible? so tell me... what is regular about this: https://www.scien...1235.htm

https://astronomy...-galaxy/

.2 second to completely debunk your claim with a search - is that a record?
because they fear of professional failure in their research
ok, another .2 sec search:
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

since you can't do subtle, i will explain:
you make a lot of claims
some are untested claims( - http://www.auburn...ion.html ) but most are blatantly false claims and can be proven wrong by simple searches

this is because critical thinking means validation of facts - you know: by research

and your idea of research is to accept any interweb page as valid
epic fail
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
By the same preposterous logic of this press release ...

WHAT ADVANCED CIVILIZATION THEN CREATED THE MARTIAN BLUEBERRIES?

My question is ...

Are the layers which appear observable within this object notably differing in chemical composition? Marklund convection seems to predict this will be the case for at least some percentage of these objects ...

And, of course, man would not do that.
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
so it's stable and reliable source of grant money
@ZEPHIR
ah, so now you retreat to your CF strawman
lets be very clear... your CF isn't being promoted because of the lack of evidence, not because of conspiracy

evidence is the keyword here:
you've never once been able to provide a valid source of information let alone evidence proving this conspiracy, so repeating a lie doesn't make it more true with time and repetition
do i really need to keep driving this point home?
we can observe, that the community of mainstream scientists systematically avoids even the observations
forming an opinion based upon your ignorance of the scientific method and physics is not evidence that your conspiracy is valid

before you reiterate your blatant false claim, try this:
http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

learn the method and the *why* and bring back "evidence", not speculation and false claims
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2016
From this moment whole the research area becomed a taboo for mainstream archeology
@ZEPHIR
absence of evidence or explanation doesn't mean it's validation of your inferred conspiracy
there could be studies going on right now which will uncover evidence
or
you could have missed a lot of information because your head is stuck in pseudoscience web-sites

might i also point out that supplying a random f*cking picture and claiming it is proof that it was found in or around the tree is like saying: your here on PO, a science site, so that must mean you have evidence based science opinion to share!

of course, that is debunked almost every time you post

so again, until you can provide an actual evidence based argument, then you're sharing "opinion" based upon your ignorance and failure to learn the scientific method

IOW - you're posting pseudoscience and false claims (see link above)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2016
@ZEPH cont'd
Even the notion of this finding gets systematically downvoted from public forums by
No, it gets downvoted because you can't actually provide evidence supporting your claims
that is the keyword and important to a scientific argument
And the lack of evidence is maintained by lack of attempts for their replication documented in mainstream journals
and again, this is called a false claim
the lack of evidence is from the lack of reproducible experiments
if you could actually reproduce the experiments and validate the claim and submit it to a peer reviewed journal, ... oh wait, that's right!
you're not here to argue from evidence, but from opinion!
silly me... i thought you could differentiate between opinion and evidence

let me say it yet again: Continually repeating a lie doesn't make it more true
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ivo_dekeijzer
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
Strange stroy to jump to conclusions like this. Especially by an "archeologist". Of course there were multiple very ancient civilizations in Europe. Some of which have left little records other then absolutely stunning designed gold and other artifacts. Recently something about some of these on CNN.

compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
What is so absurd about the conversation that is happening here is that everybody completely ignores the fact that we can create absolutely perfect spheres at the millimeter scale with electrostatic discharge into hematite (material chosen to correspond with Martian soil, to explain Martian blueberries).

Many times, these spheres will be hollow -- but not always -- and if we were being scientific about it, this would be one of the questions asked.

The great failure of imagination -- apparently here, at least -- is that people seem to believe that there is some huge theoretical difference between a sphere millimeters across and meters across.

But, this is purely an issue of the human perspective, because both sizes are really quite small by Nature's standards.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
These pictures are product of research
@ZEPHIR
so you claim... and your history of making factual claims is not all that great
I just explain
wait... so i tell you that random opinion posted is not equivalent to a factual, repeatable evidence based scientific argument
...so your idea to refute is to explain why your opinion that is not based on the evidence is somehow relevant or factual because you can link a picture and make guesses about the science?

evidence is not the same thing as opinion or belief
You're saying that "science deals with artifacts willingly" - and after few moment you'll dismiss and downvote the picture of artifacts
because you can't actually provide evidence that this is:
1- specifically an artifact of this find
2- connected to the dig
3- part of anything being ignored by scientists
how the artifacts are defined
perhaps you should try (sigh) research?
https://en.wikipe...ology%29
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
And what prohibits the scientists to analyze
@ZEPHIR
what prohibits you from replicating an experiment? Nothing - & we cannot find any such an analysis at the web, so why aren't you rich and a Nobel winner from replicating CF experiments and publishing them in reputable peer reviewed journals?
So I'm pretty sure, that the finding of
Opinion isn't equivalent to evidence based argument
and just because it aint studied right now doesn't mean it will never be studied
it fears of anomalies and every call for their systematical research gets downvoted and dismissed
repeating a lie for your own personal sake?
repeat it again, and maybe you will eventually believe it... the only reason you repeat it still is because you know deep down that i am correct and that you have no evidence to support your claims.. ergo, you repeat in the hopes that your delusional self will override your rational brain (it's working... i can tell... you're still delusional and posting)

compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
Re: "How large such a spheres can be? We can create perfect spheres from monocrystalline silicon for example - yet nobody mentions it here, because such a connection would be apparently nonsensical."

But, what is nonsensical about a large electric discharge? Yes, it would be very, very large. But, that places it into the category of a transient black swan event - a class of phenomena which science struggles to explain and predict.

It is the theoretical framework itself -- which places the weakest force as the dominant, organizing force at the interstellar and intergalactic scales -- which creates the contradiction. So, the question really boils down to ...

At what point do people ever question the scientific framework itself?
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
I shouldn't need to state this, but ...

Any approach that seeks to explain scientific anomalies which refuses to question the scientific framework -- in other words, the assumptions and original starting-point hypotheses -- will predictably fail to explain many, if not most, of the questions asked.

WHY EVEN BOTHER?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
It has been unearthed only about 30% and they start to talk about civilizations and busing people to the place. It could be a giant stone ball. It could be created by an ancient ball worshippers but still it should be close to 100% unearthed before any strong claims are being made
First off, this is not an isolated phenomenon.

"First Bosnian stone balls were found near Banja Luka, during last 10 years the dozens of stones balls were found in all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Stone sphere of Ponikve weights four tons. In the village Zlokuce near town Kakaji local people have been using the stone spheres for their magical and medicine purposes for centuries"

Hundreds have been found in Costa Rica.
https://en.wikipe...sta_Rica

-And as to whether these are man-made or not, plenty of research has already been done which is available online.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
Which attitude is therefore more relevant for you?
@ZEPHIR
1- i follow the evidence
2- science follows the evidence
3- science investigates everything it can (so long as there is time, personnel and resources, just like any police station)
therefore, i am of the science camp
I'm not linking "random opinions" but random observations and artifacts
1- you're linking opinion "about" artifacts
2- you don't even define your use of the word properly, so it is, *by definition*, opinion based in pseudoscience
The stance of yours just points to hypocritic attitude of proponents of mainstream science
you can't repeat the study and experiment and validate it, so therefore the scientific community is hypocrites?
wow... D-K much? that is the worst attempted strawman-red-herring distraction from reality and evidence based argument you've ever made.... especially as it makes no logical sense, even to the conspiracy gang
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
Re: "And as to whether these are man-made or not, plenty of research has already been done which is available online"

Are you inviting us to compare archaeological speculations against electrostatic laboratory experiments? Can you be more specific as to what you mean by this?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
one last point about this, ZEPHIR
The inquisitiveness is not thing which you can learn from textbooks - it's state of mind.
yeah, but when do you call it quits?

we already know your own personal answer: never
in science, when something is falsified, it is dismissed as being irrelevant to modern research for the most part - you know, like aether
that means, by definition, we don't allow working researchers to continue to waste funding when it could be utilised better elsewhere (like with the Higgs at CERN)

however, a religion will cling to a belief because it is a means to control others, like you do here
you cling to a falsified belief because you want to control and influence others into your sphere of power (hence your reddit page and continued spamming with pseudoscience without evidence)

if you were concerned about viable science, you would fund it (like i do) or do it yourself proving your point

epic fail for you
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
what is nonsensical about a large electric discharge? Yes, it would be very, very large. But, that places it into the category of a transient black swan event - a class of phenomena which science struggles to explain and predict
@ha
nothing is nonsensical about the large discharge... however, it is nonsensical to state it's a viable hypothesis when the evidence doesn't support it or it's proven to be false (like grand canyon formation or moon craters, or the breakup of D/1993 F2 )
At what point do people ever question the scientific framework itself?
when there is reason or evidence that can be provided to suspect the framework is wrong
until you are familiar with the methodology, however, making guesses on a pop-sci news aggregate is like proselytizing to the homeless about the merits of donating all your money to charity to get into heaven (intentional use of religion considering your eu fanaticism)
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
Question: "At what point do people ever question the scientific framework itself?"

The Non-Answer: "when there is reason or evidence that can be provided to suspect the framework is wrong until you are familiar with the methodology, however, making guesses on a pop-sci news aggregate is like proselytizing to the homeless about the merits of donating all your money to charity to get into heaven (intentional use of religion considering your eu fanaticism)"

NOTICE THAT YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

It's a question of PROCESS, and the problem of your approach is that you have no answer for it.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
NOTICE THAT YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION
@ha
actually, yes i did
you just don't like the fact that it means you can't just provide opinion and faith based belief as a valid counter to an evidence based argument

the point:
until you can prove that there is a problem (you know, with evidence, not just speculative claims and whiny ranting because pseudoscience isn't equivalent to science)
then there is no point in continuing with your argument about the methodology or framework of science

Given that evidence is the key driving force behind science, and not, say... belief... this means that when you make a claim ([x] is broken) then it should be validated

what you want, however, due to your fanatical religious belief in eu, is acceptance that what you believe in is "legitimate"

it's not because (hold on to your hat) there is no evidence, and the physics falsifies your beliefs

not only are you answered, but debunked
Science works, pseudoscience doesn't
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
@ha cont'd
decided to address this separate
At what point do people ever question the scientific framework itself?
It's a question of PROCESS, and the problem of your approach is that you have no answer for it
1- being illiterate isn't an excuse for not comprehending the problem

2- you want to question the process or framework of the scientific method and it's structure, but you can't point to any flaw that demonstrates an overwhelming problem in science

3- evidence is still the key, as well as validation and (to put it simply) not being falsified

this is why pseudoscience like the eu fails, continually, in MS science
you want to explain things, but when your whole framework is proven false (falsified with evidence) you simply think it's ok to gloss over the details and cling to the belief (IOW - religion)

that isn't science any more than xtianity or witchcraft is

until you're familiar with the method, how can you argue it's broken?
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
Such a stance is tautological - the problem is, only sufficiently long time will tell us, what the science was and what it wasn't
@ZEPHIR
nope. this is yet another logic fail (is literacy a problem?)
lets examine what science means vs pseudoscience
https://en.wikipe...c_method

vs
https://en.wikipe...oscience

so, if "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method", then we can easily determine, right now, the difference and see what is real vs what is "faith based and not evidence based"
The mainstream physics dismissed the cold fusion
see: https://en.wikipe...evidence

you aint got none, therefore it aint "dismissing" anything
so we will see, what actually works here
1- problem: not source material (dot com)
2- if it aint science, it's - Hmm...lets make a term up that explains it - lets us "pseudoscience"

get it yet?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
Captain Evasive cannot even provide a simple answer to a simple PROCESS question. Which part of the scientific method is the part where scientists question their assumptions and starting-point hypotheses?

Why is this so difficult?
Osiris1
3 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2016
At least that civilization had balls. Wonder... if more of them then must look for pre-historical TARGETskiya store ruins. Wonder if any merchandise survived...lol! Now if only I could go look and maybe find a stone dog to match, or clay tablets in some unknown language possibly related to modern Armenian detailing sales specials. Or maybe not made by humans at all but by ...aaddvanced Troödons, in which case it would be many millions of years old and the ArcheoTARGET dog would be a compsognathus...ROTFL Probably has a time capsule message telling the modern Laura Dern from 'Jurassic Park' to 'bite (him)'.
Mastoras
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2016
Captain Stumpy, I appreciate your efforts to explain and challenge nonsenses postd here. But..., I will equally or more appreciate it if you will simply ignore users who post without elementary understanding or anything. Otherwise, you are feeding the trolls of the Comments section.

One or two silly post are enough to indicate silliness. Just press "Ignore user" below any stupid comment.

@Captain Stumpy
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2016
Evasive cannot even provide a simple answer to a simple PROCESS question
@ha
hannes the illiterate can't read basic english... is that a problem of your thinking process (fast vs slow) or is that a problem of literacy?
Which part...
https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

the entire method is designed to question it's conclusions as well as it's premise
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

now, because you can't read, i will explain: everything is challenged, and then, when the observations and evidence come in, it's revised to fit the evidence - but it's not always dismissed if it is still applicable or useful
This is why we still use Newtonian mechanics when GR/SR took it's place as more accurate

so why dismiss something that isn't functional?
you know, like eu?

can you guess?
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
But..., I will equally or more appreciate it if you will simply ignore users who post without elementary understanding or anything
@Mastoras
i can understand your frustrations, but there is a good reason to challenge pseudoscience and such.... watch this video, please:
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

i know it is sometimes annoying... and yes, it gets repetitious
however, who is the target audience of my posts? those who know the science? or those who don't?

allowing pseudoscience to flourish under the guise of science means to allow it's credibility and support it's conclusions...

if no one fights against the false claims, then how can those who are not versed in critical thinking learn how to research or think about science

Thanks for your input, though... i appreciate the feedback and different perspectives

perhaps you can support my arguments to the site for moderation by writing in that they should consider my submitted plans?
Mastoras
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2016
Southern Europe, Balkan and Bosnia in particular, were home for advanced civilizations from distant past

A stone sphere in Bosnia is indication for all of Southern Europe and the Balkans?

advanced civilizations from distant past

that is not archaeological terminology.

Well..., stone spheres in Costa Rica, western Mexico, Easter Island, and now Bosnia, can all be studied as one subject, because you can always study anything. But you still have to prove that such things can all be put under the same heading.
Mastoras
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
they had high technology, different than ours.

Carving stones is not high technology, and is not different from what we have today.

Actually..., I am carving stones myself.

power of geometrical shapes

What "power of geometrical shapes"? There is no "power of geometrical shapes".

the sphere is one of the most powerful shapes along with pyramidal and conical shapes

This is a loud bell. It rings loud and clear, and it means: "this is pseudo-science and urban legends in the development phase".
Mastoras
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, Thanks for your responce, and the interesting movie. Actually, I have seen it just two weeks ago!

I admit I am divided over ignoring or fighting non-scientific posts. Perhaps..., I may even join you!!
huckmucus
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2016
Dig it up so we can see if it is round. Duh! Also, there is no need to find tool marks to implicate carving; Humans and nature can polish at levels which make a surface indistinguishable between man and natural processes. Same with the variation from, or alignment with true round. And, as Mastoras stated, the tech is not unique. It's cool, though. Study it. Tell us more when you figure something out.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2016
if no one fights against the false claims, then how can those who are not versed in critical thinking learn how to research or think about science


Perhaps you saved some neophyte from ending up in an EU advocates basement,..... but I'm not sure that is worth effectively multiplying their posts and offering them sustenance.

Lex Talonis
3 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2016
Mmmmm only the tip might be round-ish....

Happens.

Lets discuss this when it's dug up, and is beyond merely round-ish....

i.e. large sphere, rather than lumpy potato shape.
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2016
@Captains S
i can understand your frustrations, but there is a good reason to challenge pseudoscience and such.... watch this video, please:
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE


Ha, what an asshole!

Stumpy, are you a fan of this? Man up please! This misogynistic kind of discourse is not welcome on Physorg.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2016
This misogynistic kind of discourse is not welcome on Physorg.
@Techno
by all means, please tell me what, exactly, was misogynistic about that video?

TechnoCreed
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2016
@Captain S
You link a video where a guy is attacking women because he do not like what they have to say, what they like or how they behave and you ask me what is misogynistic about it? God damn it wake up!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2016
Dig it up so we can see if it is round. Duh! Also, there is no need to find tool marks to implicate carving;

Humans and nature polish in different ways. This could be revealed by surface stress analysis. If there are tool marks then these would also be characteristic. Humans use tools of a certain size (those which can be handled by human hands). Nature does not have such restrictions - so formation by natural processes tends to leave different marks.

Currently it's a bit early to jump to conclusions about 'early civilizations'. Nature can make near perfect spheres...E.g. the Moeraki boulders.

https://en.wikipe...Boulders
(though the composition of these is markedly different)
compose
Apr 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JongDan
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2016
Nature can make near perfect spheres
Such a spheres usually emerge in larger groups of variable size.

Which means there could be more of those lying buried under soil.
jim_xanara
1 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2016
Suspicious. People in that part of the world can't tie their shoes without lying.
AGreatWhopper
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2016
Compost is such a pile of shit.
huckmucus
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2016
Dig it up so we can see if it is round. Duh! Also, there is no need to find tool marks to implicate carving;

Humans and nature polish in different ways.


But they both polish nonetheless; the point being, if either polished the work of the other it would remove evidence of what the other had done. Thus, the absence of tool marks or man's way of polishing means nothing if man had polished it fine and the rock was then subject to natural weathering and polishing after that.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2016
if either polished the work of the other it would remove evidence of what the other had done.

Not really, as the process changes more than just the surface layer of atoms. Look at how the serial numbers of motor blocks can still be recovered, even if someone takes the trouble of sanding it out (e.g. with stolen cars). The associated stresses are still visible deep within the block. Arguably this is a more pronounced effect but I'm pretty sure similar analysis could be carried out, here.
While the surface structure of human- and nature-polished stone looks the same the underlying stress patterns do not.

In any event it would be unlikely that a human agent AND a natural agent had polished the stone to be spherical one after the other (in whichever order).

huckmucus
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2016
In any event it would be unlikely that a human agent AND a natural agent had polished the stone to be spherical one after the other (in whichever order).


The depth of the difference (i.e. evidence of carving/striking) would vary by material, and, you would have to look for that evidence. That evidence could be polished away, depending on how much polishing you do. Unless you are saying that evidence would carry through to the center of the sphere? Unlikely. As to your last point I would argue that it's not a matter of *polishing* the stone spherical. The stone get's spherical through carving or natural processes and *then* it is polished (weathered), later. It's not only likely, but probable. If a hard thing is already round (by man or nature) prior to polishing, then polishing is, well, just polishing, one after the other. Nature to Man = more spherical; Man to nature = less spherical but only after a long time depending, again, on hardness.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2016
I'm saying that it's not likely that someone made this a sphere...and then nature eroded the sphere significantly into another sphere. If there is such significant erosion by nature to mask any manmade polishing then the sperical character would be likely gone.

If it's still a sphere after manmade polishing and minute erosion by nature (so that the spherical character is preserved) then the manmade polishing should still be detectable by depth analysis.
huckmucus
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2016
. . .


It's not eroded *significantly* into another sphere. It's already a sphere, and then eroded somewhat.

That's the "Man to nature = less spherical but only after a long time depending, again, on hardness" point I was making. A round rock in a river will get more polished but less round over time, yes, but will the "less round" occur *before* or *after* the evidence of human polishing is lost? Also, I would argue that "polishing" can be so fine as to have it's evidence more easily lost to depth analysis (unlike the initial carving/blows). Finally, I fail to see a significant difference in man vs nature polishing. Carving, yes, but polishing would likely use the same materials (sand?, etc.) and as far as patterns to sanding (circular, linear, etc.), again, these are easily lost to subsequent agents (man or nature).
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2016
Compost is such a pile of shit.

And/or other stuff...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2016
Humans and nature polish in different ways. This could be revealed by surface stress analysis. If there are tool marks then these would also be characteristic. Humans use tools of a certain size (those which can be handled by human hands). Nature does not have such restrictions - so formation by natural processes tends to leave different marks.

Currently it's a bit early to jump to conclusions about 'early civilizations'. Nature can make near perfect spheres...E.g. the Moeraki boulders.
The proper term for carved balls is petrospheres.
https://en.wikipe...rosphere

-And like I said they have been found at many euro locations as well as around the world and have been studied for centuries.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2016
Maybe man carved it into the shape of a large boulder and then nature formed it into a sphere,.... or nature had already formed it into a sphere and then man subsequently did a poor job at carving it into the shape of a large boulder,.... or maybe its an petrified egg that some small animal died laying it,.... I think the point here is to speculate.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2016
But would it only make a sound if rolled over some philos foot?
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2016
But would it only make a sound if rolled over some philos foot?


The closest any philosopher would ever get to it, would only be enough to point out that the proper term for carved balls is petrospheres.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2016
The closest any philosopher would ever get to it, would only be enough to point out that the proper term for carved balls is petrospheres
Oh come on. Philos love to sit on big round hard natural objects like this and... ponder.

Take oscar wilde for instance.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2016
You link a video where a guy is attacking women because he do not like what they have to say, what they like or how they behave and you ask me what is misogynistic about it?
@Techno
he attacks what they say & do, just like he attacks pseudoscience and religious idiocy and what they say and do

if you're offended at a rational well thought out argument from evidence because a woman in involved, then i sincerely feel sorry for you

i will not refrain from posting said video because you don't like it

it is factually correct and i did my homework on the people in and posting it - so should you

Tell me: what would have happened if the woman had been a man? would you consider it prejudiced as well?
no... because it's factually correct

what would happen if said vid were in a court?
i can answer that: nothing
because the evidence
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2016
The closest any philosopher would ever get to it, would only be enough to point out that the proper term for carved balls is petrospheres
Oh come on. Philos love to sit on big round hard natural objects like this and... ponder.


Not likely,... since logic was historically the domain of philosophy, they wouldn't have confused "petrospheres" with "big round hard natural objects".

Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
since logic was historically the domain of philosophy
so was alchemy, astrlogy and worse...
that doesn't give credibility to them today

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
since logic was historically the domain of philosophy
so was alchemy, astrlogy and worse...
that doesn't give credibility to them today



Factually incorrect.

Alchemy was the domain of chemistry, and astrology was the domain of astronomy,...yet you would not say that 'they don't have credibility today',

That realm of philosophy that concerns logic/reason, and acquiring knowledge, it's validity and possible scope, interpretations of physical theories, etc, is entirely relevant today.

Someone who espouses the scientific method ad nausea, should at least know this much.

Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2016
Factually incorrect.
Alchemy was the domain of chemistry, and astrology was the domain of astronomy...
gotcha...
It dealt with a wide variety of subjects, including political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, logic, biology, rhetoric, and aesthetics
https://en.wikipe...ilosophy

https://en.wikipe...aphysics

Alchemy is a philosophical and protoscientific tradition
https://en.wikipe.../Alchemy

http://quod.lib.u...rgn=main

Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts, and was connected with other studies, such as astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine
https://en.wikipe...#History

http://www.scienc...10000105
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2016
yet you would not say that 'they don't have credibility today'
@Nou
and the reason they have credibility is because of their separation from philosophy and their stringent requirements for the evidenciary proof of claims... you know, like repeatable experiments, validation ... stuff like that
https://en.wikipe...c_method

and the reason philosophy isn't considered as effective?
because it's subjective to the individual... just like a religion
in philo, it's the ability to argue a point ...kinda like being a lawyer (except even lawyers require evidence at least sometimes)
Someone who espouses the scientific method ad nausea, should at least know this much
and as i pointed out: i knew exactly what i was talking about....

history is like science in that evidence can refute a known fact and rewrite it for accuracy
you should look into that a little more
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
Archaeologist sees Bosnia stone sphere as the most massive in Europe April 18, 2016, 2:31pm 1 Noumenon
i see i hit a nerve...
interesting

you claim
Factually incorrect..Someone who espouses the scientific method ad nausea, should at least know this much
so what do i do?

i provide "factual correct" information supporting my argument which demonstrates my point and proves that i am "factually correct"...

is this typical of all philo's?
LMFAO

thanks for being so transparent, nou!
Nik_2213
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2016
FWIW, our company's occasional 'House Magazine' did a series of articles on selected workers' hobbies & interests.

After an interview by their roving reporter, the draft article claimed I was an amateur astrologer. Neither reporter nor editor could understand my outrage, or my insistence that this gross insult be amended...

Though 'well-educated' people, they were totally ignorant of the 'Scientific Method'. I had to falsify & debunk astrology etc in words akin to 'baby talk' before the bemused pair belatedly grasped the extent of their gaffe...
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
It is a historic fact that,.... alchemy and chemistry,.... and,..... astrology and astronomy, ....were intertwined fields of scientific study,... that were not clearly delineated. Indeed, the reason they were not clearly delineated was because the modern scientific method itself, was still under epistemological debate, which was factually the domain of philosophy.

The modern scientific method itself exists on account of the effectiveness of the philosophy of epistemology.

Philosophy of physics is very relevant to modern science today, in interpretations and the philosophical presumptions of "realism" vs "positivism", etc.

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
@Stumpy..... Of course, I have never stated that philosophy can replace physics nor have I said that it is the same thing, ....but yet your uncritical mind would rather argue as if I had.

Philosophy begins where science ends. My interest is in physics primarily, but I am simply not so naive to think that epistemology is not relevant,... after all science is about knowledge and statements about the nature of reality, so an understanding of the difference between "realism" and "positivism" is apropos.

i provide "factual correct" information


Well no you didn't. You attempted to make an irreverent point by implying that alchemy and astrology were philosophies,... when in fact they were not delineated from chemistry and astronomy on account of a lack of understanding of the philosophy if epistemology. Your point backfired.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2016
It's not eroded *significantly* into another sphere. It's already a sphere, and then eroded somewhat.

Erosion is by natural processes. 99.9...% of all natural processes erode in a non-spherical manner.

Man to nature = less spherical but only after a long time depending, again, on hardness

And the point I'm making is that if this is the scenario then the man-made influence will be visible in the sub-surface structure.

I fail to see a significant difference in man vs nature polishing
Humans polish by hand. Almost exclusively with hand sized tools and in a circular motion of two hand sizes to arm length in diameter for spherical objects. Nature doesn't work that way..
huckmucus
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2016
Erosion is by natural processes. 99.9...% of all natural processes erode in a non-spherical manner.


Deviation of man-made or natural sphere from true sphere, referenced in other posts below, is greater than that. IOW (depending upon the hardness of the material), the amount of any non-spherical erosion could easily be less than the man-made or natural deviation from true. Freeze-thaw and sitting in an erosional (sandy/polishing) matrix would erase any evidence of distinguishing polish characters. How many years are we talking about? See picture for evidence.

And the point I'm making is that if this is the scenario then the man-made influence will be visible in the sub-surface structure.


And my point is that is not necessarily true, depending on the material, type of blows, etc.

Humans polish by hand.. . . Nature doesn't work that way..


Nature can remove all evidence of the human hand, especially re polish.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
It is a historic fact that...alchemy and chemistry...astrology and astronomy...were intertwined fields of scientific study
@nou
didn't say they weren't - check it
Indeed, blah blah blah which was factually the domain of philosophy
so, you're going to admit they were part of philosophy but downrate because i pointed this out ?
hypocrisy much?

ok then! what's next? the strawman built on blatant intentional false claim about what i wrote?
Of course, I have never stated that philosophy can replace physics nor have I said that it is the same ... would rather argue as if I had
Yup! sure enough!

so then next is a blatant false claim about what is said
Well no you didn't
wow... i knew you would do that!

and you wonder why philo subjectivity is not scientific?

evidence says you're argument is wrong, you say it too, but then add caveate that it isn't because you say it isnt based upon your *opinion*

ROTFLMFAO

philo subjectivity in action
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
@nou cont'd
Your point backfired
no, it didn't
my point was clear: just because something was associated with or a part of something in the past doesn't mean it is credible today, nor does prior association with any credible anything make anything else credible
(see eu as evidence)

You are the one who got all philo and decided to take a simple point, and i quote
so was alchemy, astrlogy and worse...that doesn't give credibility to them today
and make it into your hypocritical argument where you actually validated my evidence that the above were, in fact, part of philosophy
(was even written on the degree of higher education!)

So you agree with the evidence i posted but you ASSumed a lot about what was said, based upon your philo delusion... not upon the visible evidence... and you want to argue that point?

and you wonder why people hate philo's?

you ran with your delusion, not with my argument
LMFAO

enjoyed that laugh though!
thanks
Mastoras
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2016
People were using stones as tools since 3,8 million years ago. They were carving stones for hundrends of thousands of years --probably more than a million, but right now I dont know.

The eras of prehistory are normally called Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic. Paleo-, meso- and neo- are Greek words, meaning, Old, Middle and New. Lithos is also Greek, meaning a rock, a stone.

So, a round stone doesnt prove and doesnt speak for something new.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
@Stumpy,
What is laughable is that 90% of your own posts in response to cranks are not about science at all, but instead about the philosophy of science,.. the scientific method.

I can provide a long list of preeminent physicists who write on philosophy of physics and who acknowledge that fact.,.... i.e. interpretations of QM ARE de facto philosophy of physics, because they all rely on the SAME experimental evidence, for otherwise they would be theories.

It is absurdly ignorant and naive to impugn an entire branch of thought, without even an attempt to delineate what it is you're impugning. I only have to reference one prominent physicist who disagrees with people like you to refute you entirely, but yet I can list many.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2016
It is absurdly ignorant and naive to impugn an entire branch of thought, without even an attempt to delineate...
@Nou
what is really laughable is your attempt to turn your epic fail into a positive with nonsensical perturbations that are strawman and unsubstantiated conjecture

and i have "delineated" what the problem is: subjectivity

your argument stands on your ability to manipulate syntax for the sake of convoluted discombobulation, distraction from purpose and disintegration from reality into mysticality and abstract thought over reality

it is the antithesis of science and logic, though you can trace a meaningful (in your words "logical") thought process to underscore your argument

this is entirely subjective and can only be followed by those who are like minded - or philo's

IOW- you want to fight so you post a maze of syntactic befuddlement twisted into your own personal logic process seeking aggrandizement for being original or special

epic fail
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
Your entire post above is nothing more than gibberish. Do you ever even say anything of substance?

The original post....

.....since logic was historically the domain of philosophy...... [entirely different context] - Noumenon


so was alchemy, astrlogy and worse...
that doesn't give credibility to them today - Stumpy


So I post an undisputed fact, to which you respond with nonsense, in order to substantiate more nonsense.

-Alchemy and astrology were intertwined and undelineated with the Science of chemistry and the Science of astronomy, and were not "philosophy" as you implied and as was the basis of your argument. Newton performed many 'science experiments' in alchemy.

-Logic is still relevant to philosophy today, despite your uninformed and unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
Your entire post above is nothing more than gibberish. Do you ever even say anything of substance?
@Nou
YEP... 1
so was alchemy, astrology and worse...that doesn't give credibility to them today
and 2
and i have "delineated" what the problem is: subjectivity
the problem isnt that i was talking gibberish, it is that, being a philo, you impart your own personal delusion onto what is said, imparting your own gibberish in your own mind adding meaning where there isn't meaning

it can't get any clearer- you yourself validated my statement above, then denigrated it as wrong, even though you proved me correct...

that's just funny!

better still, you think it's an argument (it aint. it's done. see above)

so you continue to validate my points/claims about philo's
why? maybe this?
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

it's not rocket surgery, etymology boy
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
@Nou cont'd
-Logic is still relevant to philosophy today, despite your uninformed and unsubstantiated claim to the contrary
by all means, show me where i said it wasn't relevant to philo today!
LMFAO

ok, now this is a perfect demonstration to what i was saying above about... and let me quote it
it is that, being a philo, you impart your own personal delusion onto what is said, imparting your own gibberish in your own mind adding meaning where there isn't meaning
by all means... please post the quote and dissect it with your philo knowledge so everyone can see and follow your train of thought

thanks

(PS- this isn't a conversation with your professor or fellow philo-friends... take that to heart before answering

and hurry up... i got chores to do)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
LMFAO
Nou put me on Ignore because he can't use philo to argue fact... and he validated my claims, but then says they're wrong in the same post!

LOL

but worse still, because he can't comprehend how etymology is relevant to philosophy, especially with regard to historical text or interpretation of historical philosophers
http://phys.org/n...rth.html

now considering that philo's are all about the twisting and distortion of semantics for the sake of self-delusional internal logical thought patterns... that is funny in so many ways it causes me harm because i'm laughing my freakin butt right off!

thanks for the memories Nou... i am saving these threads for posterity and sharing them on other forum for the laughs

Elrathia
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2016
What Mr. Osmanagich has found is an unusually large example of a natural, not manmade, meter-scale cannonball concretion. For documented examples of very similar concretions, go see:

Heinrich, P.V., 2007, The Giant Concretions of Rock City
Kansas. BackBender's Gazette. vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 6–12.

McBride, E. F., Picard, M. D., Milliken, K. M., 2003, Calcite-
cemented concretions in Cretaceous sandstone, Wyoming and
Utah, U.S.A. Journal of Sedimentary Research. vol. 73, no. 3.
pp. 462-483.

Krajewski, K. P., and Luks, B., 2003, Origin of 'cannon-ball'
concretions in the Carolinefjellet Formation (Lower Cretaceous),
Spitsbergen. Polish Polar Research. vol. 24, no. 3-4, pp. 217-242.

Also, look up "Tout ce que la nature ne peut pas faire, IV : sphères de pierre" using your favorite search engine.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
Yikes!

"The modern scientific method itself exists on account of the effectiveness of the philosophy of epistemology." "Philosophy begins where science ends." "the philosophy of science,.. the scientific method."

Trying to have it both ways aren't we? Is it within science or without?

While having no evidence of constraints of science - it hasn't 'ended' so far - Carroll's critique misses the target, Of course scientists can use everything from astrology to philosophy to make hypotheses.

But after that we need to study what really is in order to acquire knowledge. There seems to be a massive consensus among scientists that philosophy is a parasite that tries to subjugate science - as seen in the quotes above - and get unwarranted merits from associating itself with it. Carroll's tired tirade won't change that.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
[ctd]

But yes, yes, we know there are philosophists out there, trying to make everything a part of philosopy (except when it isn't, a neck breaking jump of 'logic').

Especially galling is the unevidenced idea that science hasn't painstakingly developed its methods all by itself, as in any other craft. Merit stealing in full display, trying to demerit craftsmen doing *their own craft*. Try that elsewhere, claim philosophy invented sewing methods, say. You won't get far, nor should you. We have it on evidence that Newton invented Newton's methods, et cetera.

In reality a hammer works without any "philosophy of epistemology" or its 'epistemology'. And so does science.

Now that we have tested beyond reasonable doubt that sillysophy has nothing to do with reality, and never have published peer review science results that helps science and society, will sillysophers and especially the arrogant philosophists give us a rest? Somehow I suspect not.

But, yawn. Philosophy is dying.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
The reason why philosophy is dying is because science kicked it out as largely irrelevant (for method and results both), not inspiring hypotheses any better than astrology or art, say.

Then its irrelevance became easy to see for everyone.

And so it goes. Philosophy has never published an empirical result. Science publishes exclusively empirical results.

Which, by the way, is another distinction showing that they are not compatible, in the same way that science and religion isn't. No wonder, since philosophy and religion are both founded on unwarranted belief. We can see an expression of that when large philosophical traditions (as opposed to science, they can't unite, another mortal difference) and large religions change their beliefs to fit the progress of science.

Philosophy and religion are parasites living on the rump of science, trying to duck the shit flying their way.
WirelessPhil
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2016
Nothing new, they are found all over the world.

When they drain a pond just past Vermilion, Ohio when I was a child, we saw some that were once under water.

They are also found in New Zealand near the shore and several other places around the world.

Here is an article.

Stone spheres have been found all over the world. The most famous ones are those from Costa Rica (1), where some hundreds of so-called bolas were found, mostly in the Diquis Delta. But spheres have also been found in Mexico (2), (3), Australia, Italy (4), Russia (5) and Egypt. And recently more and more of them are being discovered in Bosnia as well, simultaneously with the uncovering of the pyramids there (6). The spheres vary in size from roughly a tennis ball to whoppers with a diameter of eight feet (Costa Rica) or even ten feet (Mexico). The weight of these giant spheres is approximately 15 tons.
thegreaterpicture.com/stone_spheres.html
Gigel
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2016
torbjorn_b_g_larsson, you should be aware that in the human history religion, philosophy and science played essential roles in human knowledge and the evolution of society. Essentially knowledge went through the 3 fields in the above order. Religion included morality and philosophy included scientific speculation when the only experimental methods at hand were based on visual observation. In time each of these fields' development slowed for 2 causes: the development of the next field and the inability or reluctance of society to actively think in the former field's setting.

Also, one day science will be put aside and will stop developing, and the focus will move on technology. This happened before, e.g. the Greco-Roman civilization was proficient in philosophy and science in its middle, Greek part, and was apt in technology in its last, Roman, part. The Romans were poor scientists (if at all). That seems to be the characteristic evolution of civilizations in general.
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2016
@WirelessPhil

Aliens? Realy?
LMFAO!
frankbuckley2010
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2016
The rock on the surface is scaling off in layers which is typical of volcanic rock when it cools.
If it had been carved it would not have this form on the surface.
I have seen lots of smaller spheres similar to this.
Nothing special about this piece of rock at all.
frankbuckley2010
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2016
Try googling pictures of kopje South Africa or Sibebe rock, which I know well in Swaziland and you will see lots of rocks like this.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.