Cladking,

I've been looking again at your theory and I'm still a bit confused about the way it works, I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself.
If you are saying that the Pyamids were built as 'ballast' to raise the water level of the Giza Plateau when it was flooded, then I hope I have got the wrong end of the stick.
I have been reading that Lake Moeris was possibly used as a resevoir to control the flood waters of the Nile, the volume of all the Pyramids put together would be inconsequential compared to the volume of the flood waters.
Have I not read you correctly?

Apparently you don't believe it's possible that the level at Lake Moeris could have exceeded the top of the grotto.

I've not given up on this for a few reasons. The minor ones are that Herodotus was told that the ancients had constructed a channel from the nile and obviously it couldn't come straight up from the valley. The very fact that the arm feeding the lake is higher now implies the dam existed. Using the lake merely to control Nile flooding would have tended to lower this section since sediments would collect in the lake.

Do you have other problems with the theory?

My knowledge of these subjects is extremely shallow and extremely recent. The net is a very poor tool for research. Any input is most appreciated.

Well we know that the Egyptians built canals and channels. The present Suez canal is not the first and of course canals were dug right up to the Giza complex which logically would have been used to transport stone but I still cant understand your theory of how water could have been used inside the Pyramid to lift stones unless your thinking of the submerging lift principle whereby a deep shaft descends into a reservoir in the centre of whatever it is your building. A weighted container on a rope is lowered into the water and floats,the container is attached to a rope which is rigged thru a system of pulleys into a lifting gantry similar to a teeter-totter or seesaw. The load is attached to one end of the rope and the container is allowed to sink into the water thus lifting the load. But of course swinging the load is impossible as it can only provide a straight lift. The water in the container is then pumped out and the load is lowered. I agree that such a system can lift great weights but there is no evidence of such a device ever being used.
The only way for your theory to work is for different atmospheric pressures acting on the reservoir of water and the water within the construction - which of course would be impossible.

I just plead with you to stop babbling about the same old stuff.

Whoever designed and built it KNEW that it would stand for millenia to come. That takes more than mere genius. It takes near Godhood - or someone who is so in tune with the Divine that...ah never mind.

And then there's like others said in regards to manpower. It seems to me that even twenty thousand "slaves" can easily overtake their "masters" (presumeably lesser in number).

While this has been more entertaining than usual, with a few more details than usual, the whole pyramid chatter suffers from one amazingly funny flaw. The fact that the pyramids were built shows that it was possible for the pyramids to be built. What were the estimates of manpower for the Great Pyramid? Was it 30,000 people working for 30 years? That much manpower should be able to make an amazing heap of stones of considerable precision. I don't understand the obsessive theorists who say humans couldn't have done it without help from invisible friends of some kind. I don't mean "invisible" to them, I mean invisible as far as evidence is concerned.

If it was my job to carve and shape rocks all day, I bet I'd come up with all kinds of shortcuts and surprises after a while. Are there any stonecutters involved in this thread? Maybe they're lurking, amused at all the things we say can't be done. They're just rocks, people. It doesn't take a genius to mark out some measurements on leather straps or ropes and say, "I need 55 stones with these dimensions," however many times it takes. If we're balking at the thought of so much hard work, the fault lies with us, not with them.

Yes, I think the Pyramids were an incredible feat of engineering, for the dedication, planning and execution involved. But it's really tiresome to hear all the blah blah from people sitting in comfy chairs over 45 centuries after the fact. Nowhere (and I mean nowhere) (including here) have I seen any rational argument that humans needed help with it.

There's also a weird sort of misconception that every stone was delivered in perfect condition (maybe even levitating into place) (gimme a break!) with no fudging to fit them into place. Have you ever tried making a simple rock wall? You take the rocks you're given and fit the best ones together, making them fit however well you want them to. Maybe if you felt you were doing it for your gods, you go the extra mile. Maybe the guys in charge were just the craziest perfectionists in history. I'm trying to keep this light and friendly, but I can easily picture the months and months of trying and trying to get each single layer of stone to come out perfect. There is no need for supernatural assistance. Hard work can move mountains.

I feel a bit bad for the guy who accidentally said we could do it with modern equipment in 3 years. But there certainly exists an amount of equipment that could do it, just probably not one that is realistic. Still, the question wasn't how long it would take, but whether it could be done. But wait ...

I think the Hoover Dam is the best comparison (3,250,000 cubic yards of concrete), at least in the sense that future people will probably pick it apart, marvel at the details and wonder how mere 20th century mortals could have done it. Construction was done from 1931 to 1935, and required roads, railroads, and other infrastructure to be built. Frankly, the dam was the more difficult project, seeing as it has to hold back 45,000 pounds per square foot of water pressure at the base.

Quick reference: http://www.arizona-leisure.com/hoover-dam-building.html

I appreciate the long post that gave all the measurements. Except for the section that chooses a few ratios out of the thousands available and suggested that numbers like 365.25 were "encoded" into it so brilliantly. There are so many heights and widths to choose from, it's truly misleading to choose the few that match up to well-known modern-day values and pretend there's something special going on. Throw 50 rocks in a field, you'll find a few hundred ratios, some of which look "familiar". It's a lot of nothing. Still, if they wanted to throw some numbers in, they were smart enough to do so. It's more likely that the Egyptians used numbers that were significant to them, and they would mean nothing to us.

So, while this thread has been fun, it just doesn't go anywhere or prove anything. I'm not saying anyone should stop looking for interesting things to investigate. I just plead with you to stop babbling about the same old stuff.

Thanks for the truly thoughtful posts. Onwards ...

;-)

The real challenge facing us is not whether or not we would we be able to replicate the Great Pyramid even with today's technology, but whether we would be able to do it using nothing but what they presumeably had. That's the cincher.

The other one has to do with sheer weight and mass. It has already been firmly established that the structure sits squarely atop a giant flat topped granite mountain - over which rests millions of tons of sand. If we had to build another Great Pyramid using nothing but period tools and technologies (everything from communications, materials making, transportation, etc) where WOULD you build it? More so, where would you build it that you knew (again, refraining from using ultrasound to scan porous spaces in the Earth) its weight would be safely supported not only during its construction, but for millenia afterward? Those are the real issues.

Whoever designed and built it KNEW that it would stand for millenia to come. That takes more than mere genius. It takes near Godhood - or someone who is so in tune with the Divine that...ah never mind.

And then there's like others said in regards to manpower. It seems to me that even twenty thousand "slaves" can easily overtake their "masters" (presumeably lesser in number).

In the end, the "why" of its construction seems like much more of a valuable question than the "how".

The Pyramid's designer KNEW that the soil at Giza represented an ideal place. Case closed. No room for discussion.

Sir Isaac Newton thought there was something to the measurements. Here's the sharpest guy in human history who through a lifetime of hard work and genius managed to push the human race a couple years ahead of where it would have been without him. Here is a man who spoke of seeing further because he stood on the shoulders of giants and he believed there was something to the measurements of the great pyramid. Almost inarguably the most intelligent person who ever lived and he investigated this.

Coincidentally there was a show on the tube a bit ago about an underground river that supplies water to Beirut. It is a natural cavern which you can take a boat in for miles.

All right already! let us just get to stating what some of you want to state:

It was built by aliens or by an advanced earth society.

I am fairly certain that is what those of you who argue against ancient Egyptian ability hold in reserve. If that is not the contention, then why try so hard to disprove ancient man built the structures?

Now then, let us for a moment presume that aliens or some advanced species did indeed build these structures. I have a question or two:

1)Where are the archaeological facts that support a non-Egyptian or advanced technology? Have you anything at all, anything other than that fallacious claim about the Abydos aircraft to support your claim? Why not? How would the aliens or an advanced society remove all trace of their construction and manpower?

2)We have massive monuments dating from the Old Kindgom pyramids right through to the late first millenia BCE within Egypt. Did aliens build those also, or are the in situ, unfinished obelisks for example, proof of advanced technology abandoned rather than the manual labour of Egyptians chipping away on granite?

3) How do you account for the scenes of men and oxen hauling the transportation of massive statues and obelisks, if some special technology was available?

Your argument seems to be that traditional explanations must be right because they are traditional.

Like any online forum, there's a startling lack of anyone reading what anyone else is actually saying. I've been seeing that all along, thought my two cents might fit in. Obviously I'm not a stick-in-the-mud status quo kind of guy. I clearly state that no supernatural elements are required. The monuments speak for themselves. We'd like them to say more, but they don't. It has nothing to do with "traditional explanations."

Wouldn't time travel be something? Wouldn't it be great to have some of the ancients around to ask about this stuff? I wonder how far off we are about some things. Probably some great comedy skits there. Next week's guest in the chatroom could be ... Moses? One can dream.

The math is tremendous but obviously you're right that anything that is sufficiently investigated will reveal the unexpected. There are a few things about the specific measurements of these which do seem to go well beyond coincidence but this is largely opinion. And you're right that Newton's opinion isn't necessarily better than yours or mine on all subjects.

To tell you the truth, I don't think the math is as complicated as many claim it is. I mean, the Roman Empire spent very little time to bother developing math, and yet, their colosseums stand even today.

Lake Moeris' bottom was likely about 45 meters below sea level in 2700 BC. In 400 BC Herodotus Said the lake was 50 fathoms deep in most places. (300 feet). The pressure would be determined by it's deepest point but one has to suspect no point is probably deeper than perhaps 350 feet. The Nile was lower at this point in those days due to the continual layers of silt and heavier material being washed down from above over the centuries.

There is a branch of the Nile which fed this lake. This is still in existence but is likely dredged frequently or it wouldn't still exist. It is presumed this flowed only in the wet season in ancient and neolithic times because there was a channel dug to the lake in about 2300 BC. This channel gave them control of the flow into and out of the lake which allowed them to kkep good water levels and flow at Memphis all year.

I believe that a river channel can only be cut if there is significant flow. I don't believe that a river channel can be cut to flood a large area even with annual flooding. This is mere conjecture and is an area where even expert opinion has little validity. I suspect experts would generally agree with this contention anyway. In any case, if there were a real flow into this area then there had to be a real flow out.

Bear with me here; Caves form in limestone because acids in the water leech out rock near the top of the water table. (This is the level at which voids in soil and rock are filled with water. It tends to be fairly flat in a given area since water is always falling) This water table is quite high all the way from here to the Giza plateau because of the existence of this lake. For millions of years there would be a flood each year which would raise the water level in the lake to a point higher than the normal water table. This area could be riddled with caves just as the Giza Plateau is known to be.

I believe that when man finally came to this area there was a single source of water coming from Lake Moeris. It was this outflow from the lake which caused the river channel into the lake to be cut. The outflow was from the grotto area of the great pyramid. Obviously the pyramid was not standing when man first arrived in the neolithic era. He found the river emerging from the ground and running almost straight down into the flooded valley (it flowed only in flooding season). There was a large "Sphinx" shaped rock it flowed by on the way to the valley. In the dry season they would crawl back into the caves and explore them.

While this flowed they couldn't tend their crops because of the flooding. They got the idea to pile rocks up and divert this water into the desert and grow crops there. Around this time (5000 BC?) they also discovered the source of the water and began other steps to control it. Initially there was probably little done but to cut a channel to the inlet and practice their masonry skills in building the rocks around the emerging water so that they wouldn't collapse and send the water back down the original channel. As time went on they gained control and carved the "Sphinx" shaped rock into... well... ...The Sphinx. This was likely in the vicinity of 4000BC or a little later. By 3000BC they had a well constructed step pyramid on the site of the upwelling river. At first the water had been diverted to the desert over the surface and the initial structures were likely to accomplish the same purpose, but the step pyramid probably used natural and man made conduits to transport the water to more distant locations in the desert underground.

When the Great Pyramid was concieved a dam was constructed across the Nile just north of Lake Moeris to raise the water level and pressure at Giza. I can't find hard evidence of this dam but have seen references to it. The satelite picture shows a possible location about 3 miles north of the latitude of the present day lake on the river.

Whether or not other pyramids or mustabas were used for this purpose I have not begun to investigate, but the terrain is such that it's not impossible that some or most north of lake Moeris were. It would have been no mean feat for them to tunnel down in just the right place to hit the underground river but the accuracy with which the pyramids a Giza were built hints at their ability to achieve just this.

Again, I understand that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. The theory's only strenght is that it sheds light on so many of the mysteries and might not create any new ones while other theories all seem to create more mysteries than they solve. Perhaps the best part of this theory is that it should be relatively easy to prove or disprove. When I started I really expected someone to know something which made it impossible but there have been no such data so far. I knew very little of this when I started, indeed, about the only thing I knew when I started was there has never been and never will be a period or place in human history that you can find 100,000 men to lug around stones for thirty years.

We may have missed the most obvious answer of all : that the builders used the Pyramid to build itself. See attached sketch.
Using this simple piece of engineering the builders would have effectively used gravity. the device could have also utilized some of your ideas if the builders had managed to figure a way of funneling water to the counterweight.

Cladking
I think that you are totally missing the point about whether or not the people/workers would have been willing to do this. It appears that the pyramids were linked to religion. All you have to do is look around you today and see what people will do for their religion. We have suicide bombers for God's sake! People are killing themselves for religion. And this is in modern day when we have a much better understanding of the universe that we live in. I think it is fair to consider the fact that people of the day would have been willing to do this work. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the construction teams worked in shifts. Sure the people who were planning and overseeing the building would work full time, but as they wouldn't be doing any physical work this wouldn't be a problem. The actual workforce could easily of done one or two days out of a week shifting blocks and the rest of the week they could have been doing their farming or whatever it was that they did.

And as someone has already pointed out, human remains in the area show the effects of severe spinal stress - which suggests a lot of lifting and pulling.

It is true that people were more accustomed to hard work in the distant past than they are now. More people had no choice between constant effort and starvation as you look back in time. But there are still problems with the concept of 100,000 men toiling for 30 years. Even if only half of them were grunts hauling around rocks that leaves 50,000 men working on this site. That's nearly as many men as most stadiums hold. If each stone had a crew of 20 then you'd have 2,500 teams pulling stones. There simply isn't enough room. There wouldn't even be enough room if they had a half mile long ramp and there isn't really any evidence of extensive ramping. A ramp to the top of the pyramid would be a much bigger project than the pyramid itself. A greater problem would occur in the quarry since this site is smaller still.

Yes, I do. Please support your claim.

Never said there was.

No, it is sidestepping. You claimed that Egyptologist would never be able to get people to think they were correct. I pointed out that they already did. That you decide you don't agree with the conventional dating does not give you leave to claim that the rest of the academic world does not either.

The people who were "able to cut stone like butter" did so using copper tools?

And yet, multiple civilizations all over the world somehow seemed to figure it out for themselves.

It is true that people were more accustomed to hard work in the distant past than they are now. More people had no choice between constant effort and starvation as you look back in time. But there are still problems with the concept of 100,000 men toiling for 30 years. Even if only half of them were grunts hauling around rocks that leaves 50,000 men working on this site. That's nearly as many men as most stadiums hold. If each stone had a crew of 20 then you'd have 2,500 teams pulling stones. There simply isn't enough room. There wouldn't even be enough room if they had a half mile long ramp and there isn't really any evidence of extensive ramping. A ramp to the top of the pyramid would be a much bigger project than the pyramid itself. A greater problem would occur in the quarry since this site is smaller still.

This also brings us back to the point that a pyrmid may be the strongest geometric shape, and also suggest that egyptians may have adapted this shape to preven the pyrmid from falling. It is then safe to conclude, then that egyptians may not have any superior building technology, so they have to resort to the strongest building shape they can find.

Here is another sketch for you showing a system of construction using a central shaft....this could also assist you in finding a reason for a shaft existing and also tie in with your water theory as water could have been used for counterbalancing.

actually the stones were cut with lasers...can i prove it ?..can you disprove it?

Sigh - I'm only here for the coffee. And it isn't even very good.

I'll put you in the former camp then. The semantics can stretch every which way if I make a poll including divisions and sub-divisions.

We surely have three groups... Message, Monument or Machine!
Unless of course there are others.

We surely have three groups... Message, Monument or Machine!
Unless of course there are others.

Maybe the Pyramids say : "we are the Egyptians and we built these monuments to our great civilization and we built them to last forever. Remember us by them"

They should also have left a note for European archeologists: "please respect our dead and let them rest in peace"