[Hanslune]

kmt_sesh, on 03 November 2009 - 04:58 AM, said:

Aquatus1 already ably provided answers to your statements, so I needn't expound on the obvious facts. What we can immediately dispense with are silly notions such as laser technology, which common sense tells us did not exist in 2,500 BCE. What does exist is generous amounts of evidence to explain how the Egyptians worked with stone, some of which I explained earlier but which, I guess, you simply can't fathom.

Your lack of background in the study of Bronze Age engineering does not negate the knowledge that exists today. I really don't care to go over the same points repeatedly just because you don't believe me, so I would suggest a careful reading of a couple of books in particular:

• Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, by A. Lucas and J.R. Harris
  
• Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry, by Dieter Arnold

Neither of these books is for beginning students and neither makes for light reading, but both will answer many (if not most) of your questions. You can probably find them at your library, or the library staff can track them down for you through other libraries.

You made no comment on the photos of later sarcophagi whose links I provided in an earlier post (#82 on this page). These sarcophagi were made a thousand years or more after Khufu's, and represent an order of masonry sophistication several levels higher than Khufu's. Are we to believe that aliens (or whatever) also made the later sarcophagi, even though analysis demonstrates that the same basic tools and techniques were employed?

Gasp! KMT we all know dem thar aliens ate granite, like that one on star trek. With that ignornant comment I shall bow out. Enjoy discussing the same stuff over and over and over and over again.

[kmt_sesh]

Hanslune, on 02 November 2009 - 10:06 PM, said:

Gasp! KMT we all know dem thar aliens ate granite, like that one on star trek. With that ignornant comment I shall bow out. Enjoy discussing the same stuff over and over and over and over again.

Well, if it was on TV it must be real, right?

[zoser]

If I lack detailed knowledge of the old Kingdom KMT then you lack knowledge of physical and mathematical prinicples.

Aqua - when you say "they had plenty of time to smooth and check the surface" my answer would be check it with what exactly?

An engineers square that they acquired from the local hardware store? How did they have that knowledge? Where did their knowledge for example of the perfect right angle come from and their means to check it? Think about it.

The right angled triangle did not supposedly come for another 2000 years - Mr Pythagoras.

No protractors, no engineering surfaces, milling machines, precision tooling, just plain old string and diorite hammers (LOL).


Oh and by the way - Mr Petrie states that they used jewelled copper saws. How does he speculate that these were made and were are they now - there must have been thousands needed!

This post has been edited by zoser: 03 November 2009 - 06:58 PM

[kmt_sesh]

zoser, on 03 November 2009 - 01:54 PM, said:

If I lack detailed knowledge of the old Kingdom KMT then you lack knowledge of physical and mathematical prinicples.

I make no secret of the fact that my acuity with mathematics is sadly lacking. The case is not so bleak with physical principles because I have spent years carefully studying engineering principles of the Early Bronze Age to try to understand their building techniques. Based on what you've written to date, I don't think you have.

Quote

An engineers square that they acquired from the local hardware store? How did they have that knowledge? Where did their knowledge for example of the perfect right angle come from and their means to check it? Think about it.

The right angled triangle did not supposedly come for another 2000 years - Mr Pythagoras.

No protractors, no engineering surfaces, milling machines, precision tooling, just plain old string and diorite hammers (LOL).

Think again. No, they did not possess advanced building or engineering tools, but such tools weren't necessary to construct their monuments. They did indeed have right-angle squares, despite what Mr Pythagoras says (and Pythagoras would've had no meaningful knowledge of Old Kingdom Egyptian engineering in the first place). Though no actual-size square has yet been found, quite a few in reduced, amuletic form are known. An example can be seen at right-center in this photograph. The detail isn't clear but many of these amuletic squares even have the little rules on them to indicate measurement.

Establishing right angle does not require modern, advanced methods. The Egyptians may have also used set squares, the Pythagorean triangle (don't let the name fool you--it's a lot older than he is), and intersecting arcs. Instead of simply dismissing the wealth of evidence that's out there, at your disposal to read and research, try looking into it first. Have you ever studied the numerous Egyptian mathematical papyri that have been excavated through the years? Most of them date to later than the Old Kingdom, but they detail the principles and formulae required to build any of their monuments, including pyramids. Also, at least consider looking into the two books I recommended earlier. Much of what you're saying is impossible is covered in at least some way in just those two books. I've handed you the resources to get started, so please get started and stop summarily dismissing evidence.

Quote

Oh and by the way - Mr Petrie states that they used jewelled copper saws. How does he speculate that these were made and were are they now - there must have been thousands needed!

Mr. Petrie would be wrong, then. To be frank I've never read that statement in the letters and biographies I have of Flinders Petrie, but he was wrong about a number of things. Then again, that's not surprising. I don't think you really understand, zoser, how much we have learned since the early days of Petrie. Petrie himself would be shocked to see how much knowledge we've gained since his day, and how much science has advanced. He'd probably be pretty miffed, too, to know that some of his ideas have been overturned.

In other words, zoser, turn to more current sources. You're limiting yourself. Also be aware that Petrie surveyed at Giza but never actually excavated at the Great Pyramid itself. His understanding of that monument was consequently limited. If you want to benefit from Petrie's long excavation experience, turn to his sites such as in the Delta, Fayoum, or in Abydos. Use sources that are relevant to the archaeology of a site.

[zoser]

Well done KMT - mystery solved now. You have found the missing square and that explains everything. I will go back to bed now.

What next? Ah yes, about time I took a look at those crop circles..........

Good night.

[Oniomancer]

kmt_sesh, on 03 November 2009 - 03:49 PM, said:

Think again. No, they did not possess advanced building or engineering tools, but such tools weren't necessary to construct their monuments. They did indeed have right-angle squares, despite what Mr Pythagoras says (and Pythagoras would've had no meaningful knowledge of Old Kingdom Egyptian engineering in the first place). Though no actual-size square has yet been found, quite a few in reduced, amuletic form are known. An example can be seen at right-center in this photograph. The detail isn't clear but many of these amuletic squares even have the little rules on them to indicate measurement.

I've been finding references online to a wooden square found in a bag of tools in a tomb dating to 1500 bc. I have to yet to find sources to confirm this yet though.

Quote

Establishing right angle does not require modern, advanced methods. The Egyptians may have also used set squares, the Pythagorean triangle (don't let the name fool you--it's a lot older than he is), and intersecting arcs. Instead of simply dismissing the wealth of evidence that's out there, at your disposal to read and research, try looking into it first. Have you ever studied the numerous Egyptian mathematical papyri that have been excavated through the years? Most of them date to later than the Old Kingdom, but they detail the principles and formulae required to build any of their monuments, including pyramids. Also, at least consider looking into the two books I recommended earlier. Much of what you're saying is impossible is covered in at least some way in just those two books. I've handed you the resources to get started, so please get started and stop summarily dismissing evidence.

A plumb line alone establishes a right angle adequately. Oh but wait, I forgot, gravity wasn't discovered until Galileo. Or was it Newton? For Zoser's benifit, Pythagorus didn't so much discover the right angle as articulate the mathematics behind it. To say otherwise is to imply that the ancients had no straight upright walls or level ceilings, which is patently and demonstrably ubsurd.

Quote

In other words, zoser, turn to more current sources. You're limiting yourself. Also be aware that Petrie surveyed at Giza but never actually excavated at the Great Pyramid itself. His understanding of that monument was consequently limited. If you want to benefit from Petrie's long excavation experience, turn to his sites such as in the Delta, Fayoum, or in Abydos. Use sources that are relevant to the archaeology of a site.

Gee whiz Kmt, Whattaya tryin' to do to the poor guy, limiting him like that?

[questionmark]

Oniomancer, on 03 November 2009 - 10:54 PM, said:

I've been finding references online to a wooden square found in a bag of tools in a tomb dating to 1500 bc. I have to yet to find sources to confirm this yet though.

Would be interesting if it is factual. The only reference to it I know is some Freemason's history bending.

[zoser]

PS

Please let me know when you find the diorite pounder - that would really solve the GP mystery once and for all!

As for the piece of string - well that would be the icing on the cake!

[kmt_sesh]

zoser, on 03 November 2009 - 03:47 PM, said:

Well done KMT - mystery solved now. You have found the missing square and that explains everything. I will go back to bed now.

What next? Ah yes, about time I took a look at those crop circles..........

Good night.

LOL See, this is what I mean. I provide a rebuttal to your skepticism and supply evidence to substantiate my argument, and you reply with mockery. Not with a counter-argument or with any means to support your own claims, but with evasive mockery. How am I (or others) supposed to take you seriously?

[kmt_sesh]

zoser, on 03 November 2009 - 04:27 PM, said:

PS

Please let me know when you find the diorite pounder - that would really solve the GP mystery once and for all!

As for the piece of string - well that would be the icing on the cake!

As with the amuletic squares, diorite and dolerite pounders are in the collections of museums around the world. Look a little harder the next time you're in one, perhaps.

[aquatus1]

Zoser, if you would look up the following logical fallacy, you will discover why you don't seem to be taken too seriously: "Argument from Personal Incredulity"

This post has been edited by aquatus1: 03 November 2009 - 09:52 PM

[kmt_sesh]

Oniomancer, on 03 November 2009 - 03:54 PM, said:

...

Gee whiz Kmt, Whattaya tryin' to do to the poor guy, limiting him like that?

As is probably obvious, I am getting a bit flustered with our zoser. LOL It usually takes a lot to do that to me. Rarely, however, have I been met with so much base and dismissive mockery when I try to provide adequate evidence to support my position. I would rather zoser try to defend his position to some degree rather than just pretend the substantiation I provide doesn't exist.

Sadly, in the end it's a common tactic among the fringe: ignore the evidence staring them in the face, pretend that a couple of centuries of scientific investigation don't matter, and blithely cling to wild speculation.

That's interesting news about the square you mentioned, Oniomancer. I've read of numerous caches archaeologists excavated containing craftsmen's tools, but I've never heard of an actual square being found. Do you have a link or a direction to send me so I could read more about it?

[Harte]

kmt_sesh, on 03 November 2009 - 03:30 PM, said:

How am I (or others) supposed to take you seriously?

News Flash Kmt_sesh,

We don't.

Harte

[Oniomancer]

[quote name='kmt_sesh' date='03 November 2009 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1257285650' post='3152689']

Quote

As is probably obvious, I am getting a bit flustered with our zoser. LOL It usually takes a lot to do that to me. Rarely, however, have I been met with so much base and dismissive mockery when I try to provide adequate evidence to support my position. I would rather zoser try to defend his position to some degree rather than just pretend the substantiation I provide doesn't exist.

Sadly, in the end it's a common tactic among the fringe: ignore the evidence staring them in the face, pretend that a couple of centuries of scientific investigation don't matter, and blithely cling to wild speculation.

Indeed. One notices that without pre-mid 20th century sources, a great many of them would be entirely without anything to cite. Hence my comment.

Quote

That's interesting news about the square you mentioned, Oniomancer. I've read of numerous caches archaeologists excavated containing craftsmen's tools, but I've never heard of an actual square being found. Do you have a link or a direction to send me so I could read more about it?

I don't know if they're the same one I saw mentioned but there's some pretty good examples given here:

http://books.google....page&q=&f=false

Also pretty cut and dried I'd say, complete with the requested string.

[Swede]

Oniomancer, on 03 November 2009 - 05:47 PM, said:

I don't know if they're the same one I saw mentioned but there's some pretty good examples given here:

http://books.google....page&q=&f=false

Also pretty cut and dried I'd say, complete with the requested string.

Well done! Now that both you and kmt-sesh have provided easy access to Arnold's work, can we hope(!) that it is actually read? Funny how an analysis of the archaeological record can resolve "the inexplicable".

As a side note, Arnold's work also demonstrates yet another set of examples of convergent technological development, a factor often apparently dismissed by authors of questionable veracity. The sledges exemplify this quite well.