902 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

It's a five step pyramid.  So they built 1 1/2 steps with ramps and switched?

If it worked so well up to 120' why would they abandon ramps?  When did the cladding go on?

Sorry, but ramp theories don't work and they have all been debunked.

YES.

When there is diminishing returns, surely they would have changed their system... Unless you're saying they were just Primitive Bumpkins that could not think??

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

There is the impossibility of cladding it on the way down meaning it had to be cladded
on the way up leaving no way to sight the pyramid to keep it true.  

Nope. It was quite easy to keep everything straight. Even cladding on the way down would not be so hard.

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

Course thicknesses have regular changes.  Stones are the same at every elevation.  The implication is every stone on each pyamid was lifted the same way and it's verylikely all the stones on all the great pyramids were lifted the same way.  Obviously a few stones and odd stones might well have been handled differently.

What are you talking about? You say the Courses have the same size and that the courses vary as you go up and then... you say that all the stones must have been moved in the same way???

That is counter intuitive. If the stones at the top, as is known, are less then a half meter on a side, then how can you say they were moved the same way as the stones at the base that are over a meter high? That is a factor of ten difference. That is like saying that someone that carries a 5 pound bag of grocerys will use the same carrying style when they have a 50 pound bag of grocerys. Counter-intuitive.....

Quote

It's irrelevant so it doesn't matter.

It is not irrelevant. It is from the same timeperiod as the PT and thus could easily portray how things were done earlier, just as you judge the PT outlines.

Quote

My understanding of the PT is that they are saying that a cool effervescent column of water was
degassed on the pyramid top and its weight was used in the henu boat to lift stones.

That could be by using a water screw and that it frothed when it tumbled foaming out the top.

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 21 February 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

What are you talking about? You say the Courses have the same size and that the courses vary as you go up and then... you say that all the stones must have been moved in the same way???

That is counter intuitive. If the stones at the top, as is known, are less then a half meter on a side, then how can you say they were moved the same way as the stones at the base that are over a meter high? That is a factor of ten difference. That is like saying that someone that carries a 5 pound bag of grocerys will use the same carrying style when they have a 50 pound bag of grocerys. Counter-intuitive.....



It is not irrelevant. It is from the same timeperiod as the PT and thus could easily portray how things were done earlier, just as you judge the PT outlines.


That could be by using a water screw and that it frothed when it tumbled foaming out the top.

I'm not sure that a water screw was utilized in the Old Kingdom but the next closest thing, the shaduf, wasn't used until many centuries after the Giza Pyramids were constructed IIRC.

cormac

[DieChecker]

cormac mac airt, on 21 February 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

I'm not sure that a water screw was utilized in the Old Kingdom but the next closest thing, the shaduf, wasn't used until many centuries after the Giza Pyramids were constructed IIRC.

cormac

Thanks Cormac.

Just pointing out to Clad that even if we accept his Pyramid Text idea, there are numerous ways to explain how water might be raised without a geyser.

[TheSearcher]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

-SNIP-
No.  There is no evidence of any sort that any stone was ever lifted on a great pyramid with ramps.
There is a purported picture of a ramp on a causeway of a tiny pyramid but I've never seen it.  It's
irrelevant so it doesn't matter.  There were numerous ways they could have built little pyramids.
-SNIP-

There's evidence of ramps al right but you chose to ignore it. The correct turn of phrase should be : "There is no evidence of ramps that I care to accept or even consider."

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

-SNIP-
Sorry, but ramp theories don't work and they have all been debunked.

No. There's still more evidence to ramps than to your personal interpretation of the PT, which is based on some fantasy of yours. So debunked? You'll find that reality is different.

[shrooma]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

  There are corners
to navigate.  There is the impossibility of cladding it on the way down meaning it had to be cladded
on the way up leaving no way to sight the pyramid to keep it true.  There is no evidence such as
sloped lines on the pyramid exterior.

There's a long laundry list of major faults with the entire concept of using ramps and these apply more
to spiral ramps than most others.  Perhaps it might be possible to build something this size with ramps
but it never happened and no one would ever try it.  Anyone building something this large would either
find an easier way like dragging them up the side one step at a time or they would never attempt it.

.
it seems obvious to me that you don't really have any understanding of engineering.
why would navigating a corner with a block present a problem? I can think of three different solutions straight away.
why would cladding the pyramid on the way down be an 'impossibility'? cladding it on the way down is MUCH easier than cladding it on the way up as you've already got a ramp in place to work from, dismantling the ramp as you work down towards the base.
there are only a 'long laundry list of problems' to people who don't understand basic engineering precepts.
in what way are dragging 1.5t stone blocks 300ft up the side of a slope easier than sliding them up a shallow gradient on a lubricated carriage??

[shrooma]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

There is no evidence of any sort that any stone was ever lifted on a great pyramid with ramps.
.
but there's an absolute abundance of evidence that the pyramids were built by space aliens I suppose....?
.

There is a purported picture of a ramp on a causeway of a tiny pyramid but I've never seen it.  It's
irrelevant so it doesn't matter.

.
dismissing something out of hand because it doesn't fit with your theories is both scientifically unsound, and intellectually pathetic.
what you have isn't an argument, it's a very poorly judged opinion.

[Abramelin]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

No.  There is no evidence of any sort that any stone was ever lifted on a great pyramid with ramps.
There is a purported picture of a ramp on a causeway of a tiny pyramid but I've never seen it.  It's
irrelevant so it doesn't matter.  There were numerous ways they could have built little pyramids.

Again:

On the South side of the paved road, South of Khufu's pyramid, we excavated down about 2.50 meters and found another part of the ramp. This part is in line with the Eastern and Western wall and is of similar construction. This discovery proves that the ramp led from the quarry to the Southwest comer of the pyramid and was made of stone rubble and Tafla.(see plans 2,3) The ramp rises to about 30 meters above the pyramid's base at its Southwest comer. The ramp would have leaned against the pyramid's faces as they rose. Somewhat like accretion layers wrapped around the pyramid with a roadway on top. The weight of this ramp is borne by the ground around the pyramid. Traffic could move along the top of this structure as both pyramid and ramp rose in tandem. The top of the pyramid could be reached with only one and one quarter turns. The slope would rise with each turn from a reasonable 65 degrees, for the first section, to as much as 18 degrees for the last climb to the apex.

http://guardians.net...ss/pbuildrs.htm

[shrooma]

Abramelin, on 21 February 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Again:

[i]On the South side of the paved road, South of Khufu's pyramid, we excavated down about 2.50 meters and found another part of the ramp. This part is in line with the Eastern and Western wall and is of similar construction. [u][b]This discovery proves that the ramp led from the quarry to the Southwest comer of the pyramid and was made of stone rubble and Tafla

http://guardians.net...ss/pbuildrs.htm

.
now, I don't know what cladking would call this (apart from 'irrelevant' of course.), but to me, actual physical remains of a ramp, excavated in situ, is what i'd consider, pretty conclusively, to be 'evidence'.

[TheSearcher]

shrooma, on 21 February 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

.
now, I don't know what cladking would call this (apart from 'irrelevant' of course.), but to me, actual physical remains of a ramp, excavated in situ, is what i'd consider, pretty conclusively, to be 'evidence'.

To clad it's wrong interpretation of the facts at hand and outright lies. "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TOWARDS RAMPS!!" or indeed irrelevant.
Everybody else, would of course agree with you.

[Harte]

cladking, on 21 February 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

There is simply no evidence that any of the great pyramids are any different in any
part of their construction.  Course thicknesses have regular changes.  Stones are the
same at every elevation.  The implication is every stone on each pyamid was lifted the
same way and it's verylikely all the stones on all the great pyramids were lifted the same
way.  Obviously a few stones and odd stones might well have been handled differently.

I think you mean that the stones that are at the same elevation are similar in size.

As you go up the GP, the stones shrink in size. This results in the bottom stones being slightly less than twice the size of the top ones.

Why would they do this if the same geyser was lifting them all?

Harte

[Harte]

shrooma, on 21 February 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

.
now, I don't know what cladking would call this (apart from 'irrelevant' of course.), but to me, actual physical remains of a ramp, excavated in situ, is what i'd consider, pretty conclusively, to be 'evidence'.

I've quoted that very passage to him over the last six years or so multiple times.

He has no answer for it except they might have used a ramp from the quarry, but it was all geysers after that.

Harte

[shrooma]

Harte, on 21 February 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

they might have used a ramp from the quarry, but it was all geysers after that.

Harte

.
then i'm not even going to bother asking him if he's any idea how much water pressure would be needed to lift a 1.5t stone block 300ft into the air, something that would be quite impossible even today.
I suppose the fact that the stone itself would shatter with the forces involved is 'irrelevant' too...?

[shrooma]

TheSearcher, on 21 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

To clad it's wrong interpretation of the facts at hand and outright lies. "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TOWARDS RAMPS!!"

.
then that suggests a very juvenile attitude towards the pursuit of knowlege, and therefore cannot be taken seriously.