Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Pyramid stones were transported over wet sand

wet sand pyramid stones transported sledge ancient egyptians moistened water

  • Please log in to reply
739 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 38,630 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 01 May 2014 - 08:58 PM

Physicists from the FOM Foundation and the University of Amsterdam have discovered that the ancient Egyptians used a clever trick to make it easier to transport heavy pyramid stones by sledge. The Egyptians moistened the sand over which the sledge moved. By using the right quantity of water they could halve the number of workers needed.

http://phys.org/news...tones-sand.html

Posted Image

#2    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,266 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 01 May 2014 - 09:13 PM

Didn't they use elephants?


#3    Purifier

Purifier

    Δ

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,013 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • Wild Card

Posted 01 May 2014 - 10:39 PM

Well they did in the movie 10,000 B.C. If that's what you're talking about?


But from what has been shown, mostly man power and oxen .

Posted Image


Here's a nice website that tells you about it all:

http://www.cheops-py...dge-tracks.html


Although I personally don't believe they bothered trying to pull those stones up steep ramps when they got to the pyramidal structure, but rather they used cranes instead (like the romans) to haul those stones up the pyramid the rest of the way.

Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius

#4    029b10

029b10

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:01 Feb 2014

Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:19 PM

In the writings of Uknoei Amarah,the premise was given that the stones used in the construct of the Pyramids weren't  actually stones quarried and then transported to site of the Pyramids
but rather were poured on site liken to the process used in pouring cement as later found in the aqueducts of the Roman Empire.

It has only been within the last five years that researchers have even begin to research this possibility and the initial  findings are showing more that in fact they were made in a process similar
as used today for concrete, using the crush stone as the aggregate in a sedimentary mixture which would thereby solidify giving it the appearance much as the actual aggregate.

Not saying that anyone has to accept the possibility of that theory, but I don't agree with the those who claim it would negate the historical and cultural value of the Pyramids if proven to have been built contrary to conventional thought.

Posted Image

Upon the Circuits of My Creator

shall I return to the Garden of Lights


#5    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,584 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:53 PM

View Post029b10, on 01 May 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

It has only been within the last five years that researchers have even begin to research this possibility and the initial  findings are showing more that in fact they were made in a process similar
as used today for concrete, using the crush stone as the aggregate in a sedimentary mixture which would thereby solidify giving it the appearance much as the actual aggregate.

The 'poured concrete pyramid blocks' hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny. First, it would actually take more work to construct the pyramid using a wet concrete - as the weight of the water (some of which evaporates as concrete dries) has to be taken into account.

But second, and most telling, the quarries from whence the pyramid material was dug provide evidence that blocks of stone were cut - and this relegates the 'poured cement' hypothesis straight to the dustbin. There would be no need to cut blocks of stone from the quarries if it was then to be reduced to aggregate for reforming as concrete.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#6    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:30 AM

View Post029b10, on 01 May 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

It has only been within the last five years that researchers have even begin to research this possibility and the initial  findings are showing more that in fact they were made in a process similar
as used today for concrete, using the crush stone as the aggregate in a sedimentary mixture which would thereby solidify giving it the appearance much as the actual aggregate.

The initial hypotheses by Davidovits et al were initially presented some decades ago and have been rather well addressed on these pages. In short, the postulations by Davidovits and Barsoum have not withstood critical review.

.


#7    scorpiosonic

scorpiosonic

    Still Skeptical

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2014

Posted 02 May 2014 - 03:20 AM

This would also work on hard ground as the water would work as a lubricant.



Interesting topic, and pic in link.
Thanks, SW.


#8    6.6.6

6.6.6

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2014

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:21 AM

I remember reading an article that put forward the idea that the various pyramids and ancient structures around the globe that defy construction methods were in fact from a much earlier era and the various civilisation (Egyptians, Mayans etc) altered them and decorated them to suit there beliefs and way of life.

The idea was suggested that there have been many human civilisation's that have risen and fallen for millions of years, through natural disasters the human race has had to start over thousands of times, and there have been times where we were much more advanced than our current state,
The Egyptians being a race that came across the pyramids and used them, but certainly did not construct them!

Its an idea ive taken on board as a possibility,



#9    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,054 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:57 AM

If the Egyptians were really smart they would have constructed a navigable waterway, just wide enough and deep enough, to transport the stones from the quarry sites to the construction sites IMO. One ox would have been sufficient to tow even the largest stones, and would have been much more efficient in terms of manpower - Heck, they wouldn't even need to hire those extraterrestrials to help them :whistle: :innocent:


#10    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:58 AM

If you don't mind indulging my curiosity, what about the construction of the pyramids defies construction methods? We have a sequence of steadily more complex structures, from the Step Pyramid, through the Bent Pyramid and the Red Pyramid to the Great Pyramid.

There isn't a simpler way to build a tall structure. By comparison, Europe's medieval cathedrals are a marvel, using a fraction of the stone to build compared to a pyramid of the same height. But no one seems to suggest that the cathedrals were built by aliens or incredibly advance human civilisations.

As for the idea of preceding advanced civilisations, where is the archaeological evidence? That is, where are the bones of humans from millions of years ago? Where is the technological debris? If they wiped themselves out in massive wars, where is the evidence of those wars?


#11    Jargogle Ergo

Jargogle Ergo

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:23 Apr 2014

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:52 PM

View PostPeter B, on 02 May 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

As for the idea of preceding advanced civilisations, where is the archaeological evidence? That is, where are the bones of humans from millions of years ago?

850,000 year old human footprints were discovered in Norfolk, England, in February of this year.  

Prior to that 700,000 years old flint tools were discovered in the neighbouring county of Suffolk, England, a few years earlier.

The earliest human skull (Human Erectus) is approximately 2 million years old.  You can see a picture of it here.

But given this history it is interesting that evidence of technological debris, such as standing stones, stone circles etc., are relatively recent by comparison.


#12    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,625 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:52 PM

Not really new, in one of the pharaohs funerary monuments there is a picture of people dragging a monument of him on a sledge, in front of the sledge there are some people wetting the ground with something. Some people supposed it was oil, most were certain it was water.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#13    ChewiesArmy

ChewiesArmy

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rockford, Illinois

  • When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice. - Cherokee

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:31 PM

So I guess I am a bit confused. Is this article saying that aliens had water hoses?

"And how do you know God doesn't swear? Especially taking a good look at the human race, it must be a part of his daily ritual" -Lewis Black

#14    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,402 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:36 PM

I've seen a number of theories about how the ancients achieved these various monumental moving of rocks projects, and I think all of them would work.  Therefore there is no "mystery" in these cases, only uncertainty about which of the possible methods or something we haven't thought of was the actual method.


#15    Calibeliever

Calibeliever

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Up here

  • The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none. - Thomas Carlyle

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:58 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 02 May 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

If the Egyptians were really smart they would have constructed a navigable waterway, just wide enough and deep enough, to transport the stones from the quarry sites to the construction sites IMO. One ox would have been sufficient to tow even the largest stones, and would have been much more efficient in terms of manpower - Heck, they wouldn't even need to hire those extraterrestrials to help them :whistle: :innocent:
I've seen the temporary waterway theory put forward several different ways and, in general I agree they make sense. They were very adept at controlling to flow of water, and creating channels like this would have posed no challenge.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users