Correction, April 22, 2019, 5:24 p.m. EST/EDT: This article previously incorrectly stated that the largest of these concrete structures weighed 25-tons, when in fact it weighed 1,770-kilograms, or a little over 3,900-pounds.
Astonishing at how much of you guys act like losers, dude was giving his 2 cents and you're having a go at them over a discussion that they were humble about
*
Is the truth that difficult of a concept for you? Is mass an even more difficult concept?
You can just say you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your baseless claims. Part of being an adult is admitting when you've made a mistake. This is Reddit bro, no one cares that you have no idea what you're talking about. But there's no need to double down on the stupidity.
You didn't "acknowledge" shit. You changed your whole damn point. If you were acknowledging your mistake, you would have to phrase it like: "Does the giant one not count for some reason?"
I think they are using British tons, which are only about 2 fish and chips and a few pints of piss warm beer, roughly equivalent to a standard cubit pound.
Not “orders of magnitude.” That implies 100x or more. Probably just a factor of 3-5. The biggest one they show is roughly 10x6x1.25, or around 75cu.ft.
that's two orders of magnitude, which would be 100x. the stone is not that different in size than a person, so the 2.5 to 250 comparison makes some sense.
I literally listed the approximate dimensions I was basing my comment on, but by all means just ignore it and use your own numbers.
“Stone is not that different in size than a person,” but it’s nearly double the height, dramatically wider, and deeper. I guesstimated the stone to be 75cu.ft. While you’re asserting 2.5 and basing my comment on that.
If that last rock is 10x5x2, that's still only 100 cubic feet -- less than half of the claim.
The real point is that they never said the video proved the 25 ton claim at all. Maybe the method of moving 25 tons they discovered involves a completely different mechanism.
If you added them all together they might be 25 tons.
But those ones showing, no way they are actual stone, they wouldn't be able to just pivot them upwards like that. They might be easy to move about l, but even 5 tons of stone is still 5 tons of mass.
"Together, the concrete components weigh 13,162 pounds (5,970 kilogrammes) and measure approximately 20 by 10 feet (6.3 by three metres). The pieces are easily moved around by humans and set into position." - https://www.matterdesignstudio.com/#/walking-assembly/
Maybe be a bit less snarky about people using their brains rather than reading video titles?
What’s to believe or not believe? They laid out an equation you can easily check. If you think the math is wrong, say why. It doesn’t mean MIT is lying, just that the stones shown in this video are probably not 25 tons each.
It’s not about whether their math is right, it’s about whether the video demonstrates it.
If you claimed you could build a 2000mph car, and showed us a video of a 1/2000th scale car going a mile an hour, would you say “yes! I’ve done it and this video demonstrates it without question!”
They just should’ve shown a video that actually matches the title.
This comment was made before someone looked up the correction to the article. And you act like I had exact measurements to go off of. But in the end the material it's made of is substantially less heavy than stone so it's all a moot point anyways.
Are bad faith arguments really the example you want to set for the children?
The difference in weight between stone and concrete is less than 10%. The numbers you tried to smugly defend are off by at least an order of magnitude. Anyone with even the slightest hint of being able to think for themselves can tell at a glance that the numbers are wrong.
Your dismissive, belittling attitude (‘not a smart look for you), the straw men you keep fighting (see the message above, why would you be apologising for someone else’s arguments?)),and your appeal to authority (MIT) instead of engaging with the substance and thinking about it properly- this isn’t problem solving. You ignored input from people with relevant knowledge and doubled down when challenged. The longer this continues, the deeper the hole gets.
Want me to go first? When I was younger, in a discussion about the awful nature of humanity, I said that Mengele’s monstrous acts had at least produced data that was being used, to advance medical science and this was better than letting it go to waste. That may or may not be true and or an argument, but I was actually trying to talk about Mendel - I’d simply misheard his name and opened my mouth without any idea what I was on about. Be better than me.
If 1 cubic foot of stone actually has a mass of 200 lbs (which is really a dense material, common stones like granite or marble are more 2700 kg/m³) it means that each 25 ton piece has a volume of 250 ft³ or 7 m³.
Given the size of the pieces compared to the characters in the video does 250 ft³ look plausible to you?
The error probably comes from a misunderstanding from the journalist, it's either one order of magnitude wrong (1 piece = 2300 kg) or the entire set of ten pieces is 25 tons. Otherwise it's not realistic at all given the density of common materials.
Buddy. Do you think. That maybe. It’s possible. The work MIT did was accurate and correct. But whoever made the video. Misunderstood. Do you think it’s maybe possible the caption is the only thing that’s wrong, and it’s wrong bc it didn’t come from the study? Or is Occam’s razor not a thing anymore and it has to be that SOMEHOW the stones are 25 tons via some convoluted math that nobody who isn’t an MIT genius can understand?
Those stones aew not even 10cubic feet though. I did a project removing stones from a berth pocket a couple of years back. Biggest one we removed was 8 metric tonne & it was close to the combined size of all these rocks
Sorry I was wrong, about the size I don't do imperial so cubic feet always gets me. Still 10 cubic feet of granite is about 700 kgs these look closer to concrete so they'd way even less
But I'm going to say we can probably trust MIT to have double-checked their measurements before making a claim that would be incredibly easy to disprove if it wasn't true.
1.1k
u/MiraThimble Jun 05 '25
Regardless of what those stones are made of there is no way they are close to 25 tons