Explain to me 20 years for Khufu

[kmt_sesh]

I can't add much to the subject of settling because I don't have a background in the engineering and physics principles involved. However, the Great Pyramid is constantly subjected to the scouring and damaging forces of the desert, the same forces that have eroded and decimated countless other tombs and monuments in the Nile Valley. The exposed blocks of the Great Pyramid are nothing but limestone, a relatively soft and malleable stone. They are slowly but surely eroding under the dynamics of desert winds. Could this ever-present erosion and reshaping lead to some degree of settling?

[Qwasz]

I can't add much to the subject of settling because I don't have a background in the engineering and physics principles involved. However, the Great Pyramid is constantly subjected to the scouring and damaging forces of the desert, the same forces that have eroded and decimated countless other tombs and monuments in the Nile Valley. The exposed blocks of the Great Pyramid are nothing but limestone, a relatively soft and malleable stone. They are slowly but surely eroding under the dynamics of desert winds. Could this ever-present erosion and reshaping lead to some degree of settling?

The only thing that could cause settling would be blocks being crushed or the foundation settling. Neither of which would produce the creases.

The creases can only have come from the original design and layout. One might speculate that they were a "mistake" but I find that unlikely due to the equivalence between all 4 creases (on each side they are identical)

[questionmark]

I can't add much to the subject of settling because I don't have a background in the engineering and physics principles involved. However, the Great Pyramid is constantly subjected to the scouring and damaging forces of the desert, the same forces that have eroded and decimated countless other tombs and monuments in the Nile Valley. The exposed blocks of the Great Pyramid are nothing but limestone, a relatively soft and malleable stone. They are slowly but surely eroding under the dynamics of desert winds. Could this ever-present erosion and reshaping lead to some degree of settling?

Here we have an image that shows all of the above...including the futile attempts of some to vandalize the thing (but then again, they lost interest after a few months...not 20 years)

[Qwasz]

Here we have an image that shows all of the above...including the futile attempts of some to vandalize the thing (but then again, they lost interest after a few months...not 20 years)

another means of proving to yourself that it doesn't settle is to look at the mainstream estimates of original height. They do not contain settling calculations.

[kmt_sesh]

The only thing that could cause settling would be blocks being crushed or the foundation settling. Neither of which would produce the creases.

The creases can only have come from the original design and layout. One might speculate that they were a "mistake" but I find that unlikely due to the equivalence between all 4 creases (on each side they are identical)

If you're talking about the apparent grooves that run down the center of each face of the Great Pyramid, I am in agreement. My question about settling has nothing to do with them. They are unarguably a product (or byproduct) of the construction process. I mention byproduct because I believe they result from the concave nature of each face, as can be seen at right (north) in this photo. The concavity meets at the center on each face and produces the groove. The concavity is a deliberate design feature--I've read that it would've helped to make the monument more stable overall--but the grooves served no purpose as to design or structure as far as I'm aware.

another means of proving to yourself that it doesn't settle is to look at the mainstream estimates of original height. They do not contain settling calculations.

Another reason I've personally wondered about settling is how Petrie's meticulous surveys of the late nineteenth century are still used by researchers today. Perhaps this has to do more with erosion than with settling, but surveys conducted in more recent times on the outer areas of the pyramid show it to be a bit denuded as compared to what Petrie's measurements reveal.

[Qwasz]

The concavity is a deliberate design feature--I've read that it would've helped to make the monument more stable overall--but the grooves served no purpose as to design or structure as far as I'm aware.

According to cladking this is present on GP1 and GP3, but not 2. Is this your understanding as well? And what do you make of that?

[kmt_sesh]

According to cladking this is present on GP1 and GP3, but not 2. Is this your understanding as well? And what do you make of that?

I am not aware that the feature is part of Menkaure's pyramid (G3). I might have to look into that some more but I am uncertain. Concavity does, however, appear in the Red Pyramid at Dashur, but on a much more subtle scale than on Khufu's pyramid.

[Qwasz]

I am not aware that the feature is part of Menkaure's pyramid (G3). I might have to look into that some more but I am uncertain. Concavity does, however, appear in the Red Pyramid at Dashur, but on a much more subtle scale than on Khufu's pyramid.

I need to look up the link but I was reading about concavity on Menkaure and how it did NOT show up in the lowest layers of basalt casing (which was below the limestone casing on that pyramid (not underneath it, the lowest courses were cased in basalt and then courses above the first few were limestone). But above the basalt Menkaure did indeed have concavity.

I'll have to try to dig up that link.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Qwasz

[cladking]

I need to look up the link but I was reading about concavity on Menkaure and how it did NOT show up in the lowest layers of basalt casing (which was below the limestone casing on that pyramid (not underneath it, the lowest courses were cased in basalt and then courses above the first few were limestone). But above the basalt Menkaure did indeed have concavity.

I'll have to try to dig up that link.

We're talking about two different things.

There is a concavity on the sides of G1, G3, and the Red Pyramid. In more

accurate terms these sides are actually two sides because each is bifucated

vertically. These pyramids are eight sided but thisw effect is difficult to

see under most lighting conditions.

Additionally G1 has a deep groove running down the center of each of these

bifurcations. This groove is nearly as deep at the top as at the bottom. The

groove severely weakens the pyramid but it doiesn't matter because there is

no internal or external force for these sides to withstand.

[cladking]

If you're talking about the apparent grooves that run down the center of each face of the Great Pyramid, I am in agreement. My question about settling has nothing to do with them. They are unarguably a product (or byproduct) of the construction process. I mention byproduct because I believe they result from the concave nature of each face, as can be seen at right (north) in this photo. The concavity meets at the center on each face and produces the groove. The concavity is a deliberate design feature--I've read that it would've helped to make the monument more stable overall--but the grooves served no purpose as to design or structure as far as I'm aware.

There are no internal forces which the concavity might help

support the sides in withstanding unless you're one of those

who think the pyramid was a pump. There are no external forces

which these concavities would help hold. They simply have noth-

ing whatsoever to do with the ability of the pyramid to stand.

These concavities do represent a significant amount of weight

not moved and not dependent on the underlying structure. But

it's quite doubtful either of these is the reason they built them

into it.

There is no known or logical means by which the concavity could

produce the groove. You aren't going to find an engineer nor

a physicist who believes that it might be caused simply by being

there. It is another feature built into the pyramid and almost

certainly intentional.

Another reason I've personally wondered about settling is how Petrie's meticulous surveys of the late nineteenth century are still used by researchers today. Perhaps this has to do more with erosion than with settling, but surveys conducted in more recent times on the outer areas of the pyramid show it to be a bit denuded as compared to what Petrie's measurements reveal.

You can see a great deal of erosion on the east side since Nap-

olean' artists sketched this. Remember it's only 200 years since

that time but the cladding has been missing only 800 years so that's

25% of the erosion on the face.

[kmt_sesh]

I need to look up the link but I was reading about concavity on Menkaure and how it did NOT show up in the lowest layers of basalt casing (which was below the limestone casing on that pyramid (not underneath it, the lowest courses were cased in basalt and then courses above the first few were limestone). But above the basalt Menkaure did indeed have concavity.

I'll have to try to dig up that link.

I wouldn't expect the concavity to be evident on the casing stones. I'm a bit confused by your description of the basalt casing, however. If you're referring to the outermost dressed stones on the lower portion of the pyramid, these are the only remaining casing stones and they're pink granite. Many of them are not well dressed or smoothed because it's apparent Menkaure died before everything was finished. The mortuary temple was finished with mud brick instead of stone, for instance. Basalt was often used as paving stones, such as in the floors of temples. I can't remember the specs on Menkaure's temples but Khufu's mortuary temple was paved with slabs of basalt, and they're about all that is left--the inscribed walls were found in fragments scattered around the site.

That's neither here nor there, I suppose. I am easily distracted. No, the concavity would not have been part of the outermost casing stones. The concavity of the faces no doubt would've made the laying of the casing stones more difficult, but the builders most likely would not have wanted the concave effect to be visible in the finished product. I am still not certain if Menkaure's pyramid bears concavity--I need to look into that more--but the remaining granite casing stones at the bottom do not bear this feature, as far as I'm aware.

[Qwasz]

I wouldn't expect the concavity to be evident on the casing stones. I'm a bit confused by your description of the basalt casing, however. If you're referring to the outermost dressed stones on the lower portion of the pyramid, these are the only remaining casing stones and they're pink granite. Many of them are not well dressed or smoothed because it's apparent Menkaure died before everything was finished. The mortuary temple was finished with mud brick instead of stone, for instance. Basalt was often used as paving stones, such as in the floors of temples. I can't remember the specs on Menkaure's temples but Khufu's mortuary temple was paved with slabs of basalt, and they're about all that is left--the inscribed walls were found in fragments scattered around the site.

That's neither here nor there, I suppose. I am easily distracted. No, the concavity would not have been part of the outermost casing stones. The concavity of the faces no doubt would've made the laying of the casing stones more difficult, but the builders most likely would not have wanted the concave effect to be visible in the finished product. I am still not certain if Menkaure's pyramid bears concavity--I need to look into that more--but the remaining granite casing stones at the bottom do not bear this feature, as far as I'm aware.

Yes I may be mistaking the basalt with granite. It may have been granite casing I was reading about. I remember it was one of the really hard stones, and that it was only on the lowest levels, and that it did not have concavity, but the stripped upper portion did.

[kmt_sesh]

...

There is no known or logical means by which the concavity could

produce the groove. You aren't going to find an engineer nor

a physicist who believes that it might be caused simply by being

there. It is another feature built into the pyramid and almost

certainly intentional.

...

I have never read of a physicist's take on the Great Pyramid, nor would I wish to. I quite simply wouldn't be able to understand it. That's not to say none have examined the Great Pyramid, of course. It's just that I personally have never seen such a paper or article. The closest I've come is scientists employing particle physics (muons, in particular) to produce detailed images of the interior of pyramids. This was done with Khafre's pyramid some thirty years ago, but since then the technology has been most honed at Mesoamerican historical sites.

Engineers are another matter, of course. Plenty of them have studied the Great Pyramid, some more usefully than others. It is the belief of engineers that the concavity was a deliberate design feature. The grooves are nothing more than where the two halves of each concavity meet in the middle of each face. That's why I describe the grooves as a byproduct, which is probably a painfully unscientific way of thinking of them, but there you have it. It's simply unlikely that these grooves served any sort of design or construction purpose, so you ought not to think that they're somehow related to geysers and counterweights.

[Qwasz]

I have never read of a physicist's take on the Great Pyramid, nor would I wish to. I quite simply wouldn't be able to understand it. That's not to say none have examined the Great Pyramid, of course. It's just that I personally have never seen such a paper or article. The closest I've come is scientists employing particle physics (muons, in particular) to produce detailed images of the interior of pyramids. This was done with Khafre's pyramid some thirty years ago, but since then the technology has been most honed at Mesoamerican historical sites.

Engineers are another matter, of course. Plenty of them have studied the Great Pyramid, some more usefully than others. It is the belief of engineers that the concavity was a deliberate design feature. The grooves are nothing more than where the two halves of each concavity meet in the middle of each face. That's why I describe the grooves as a byproduct, which is probably a painfully unscientific way of thinking of them, but there you have it. It's simply unlikely that these grooves served any sort of design or construction purpose, so you ought not to think that they're somehow related to geysers and counterweights.

The concavity is so slight that engineers have come up with no practical purpose for it.

It would have made casing a LOT harder though, since a very gradual change in the thickness of the casing would be required. Why on earth they would make things so much harder on themselves with no practical or even VISIBLE reason for it, is a mystery.

And before you argue that it wouldnt be that much harder, stop and think. By introducing the elimination of concavity in the casing layer they would have lost their ability to interchange blocks in each layer of casing. You've got from HUNDREDS of blocks which would be interchangable per course, to a set of 100% unique blocks per course. Or, even more accurantely, 4 identical version of a unique pattern (one for each side). That's a LOT of very specifically cut stones. It's a LOT more work logistically.

More work == more time. And they would have been trying to save time. Always to save time, kings die!

Time would have been on the mind of every single Egyptian on the project from the top guy down to the guys pulling.

And that's what makes it so inexplicable. If it didnt save them time, but instead cost them a large amount of time, yet served no practical purpose and could not even be detected on a finished pyramid, why in the heck would they do it, repeatedly?!

Edited June 1, 2010 by Qwasz

[cladking]

I wouldn't expect the concavity to be evident on the casing stones.

I can't imagine any other reason to put it there than

to have it appear on the casing stone and make the finished

pyramid a clock visible from hundreds and hundreds of miles

away. I'm told though that the evidence appears to agree

with you and the casing hid this feature. Obviously it's

impossible to know this with certainty.

I'm a bit confused by your description of the basalt casing, however. If you're referring to the outermost dressed stones on the lower portion of the pyramid, these are the only remaining casing stones and they're pink granite. Many of them are not well dressed or smoothed because it's apparent Menkaure died before everything was finished. The mortuary temple was finished with mud brick instead of stone, for instance. Basalt was often used as paving stones, such as in the floors of temples. I can't remember the specs on Menkaure's temples but Khufu's mortuary temple was paved with slabs of basalt, and they're about all that is left--the inscribed walls were found in fragments scattered around the site.

Well, there's the pit right at the base of the east groove

as well as the two "boat pits" and the large block of lime-

stone that fed the canals leading to the cliff face. The

pit may have been used to feed the ascender rather than the

so called boat pits.

I'm very interested in the artical as well.

[Qwasz]

Found it:

Maragioglio and Rinaldi observed that the granite casing of Menkaure's pyramid was flat, but above the granite the packing-blocks formed a concavity in the center of each face. The evidence indicates that the concavity is a functional feature of the core structure that was hidden from sight when the casing stones were applied

From http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

[cladking]

The grooves are nothing more than where the two halves of each concavity meet in the middle of each face. That's why I describe the grooves as a byproduct, which is probably a painfully unscientific way of thinking of them, but there you have it. It's simply unlikely that these grooves served any sort of design or construction purpose, so you ought not to think that they're somehow related to geysers and counterweights.

It is not legitimate to simply claim that a slightly

bifurcated side on a 6 1/2 million ton pyramid would

have a groove. There has to be some mechanism sug-

gested and this would probably be entirely comprehen-

sible to the layman. There is no such explanation even

in the most esoteric jargon.

The fact is the grooves are there. They are on all four

sides and about the same prominence top to bottom. They

were an intentional feature or a by product of an inten-

tional process until it's shown otherwise. Whatever this

feature or process was it was in force during the entire

span of time the pyramid was in construction.*

*assuming it wasn't built from the inside out for which

there is absolutely no evidence or logical reason.

[cladking]

Found it:

Maragioglio and Rinaldi observed that the granite casing of Menkaure's pyramid was flat, but above the granite the packing-blocks formed a concavity in the center of each face. The evidence indicates that the concavity is a functional feature of the core structure that was hidden from sight when the casing stones were applied

From http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

That's way way cool and suggests G1 did keep this concavity in the casing.

...A million thanks.

[Qwasz]

That's way way cool and suggests G1 did keep this concavity in the casing.

...A million thanks.

No i think you're reading it wrong. The packing blocks had the crease, the casing blocks didnt. The casing blocks above the granite were stripped.

Unless I missed something in the article.

Also realize this crease is not a groove, in that it is not deeper than the angle between the half-sides would cause.

[+DieChecker]

There are several ways it could have been done with wind.

One I can think of, is... assuming Cladking is right and they used counterweights, that they pumped water up the pyramids with wind power.

If the blocks were all dumped in a pile, then yes, there would be settling and it would act like a "pile of gravel". But the pyramid is not a pile of limestone blocks. The blocks are ordered and stacked.

But, they are not completely flat and level. Each block can be seen to be more or less rough then its neighbor. So it is more like stacking dice and less like stacking lead bricks.

Just because gravity causes settling does not mean anything acted upon by gravity will settle. You're violating the most fundamental rule of logic.

What I'm doing is putting out an idea and seeing what evidence there is for it. What you are doing is poo-pooing any idea but your own.

Why do you think none of the mainstream literature suggests settling for the creases?

Not just the creases, but the concavitys mostly.

Though reading the rest of this thread to this point causes me to re-evaluate, because the evidence of the concavity being on purpose is convincing to me. I had not heard much about the concavity and the research done on it before making my suggestions, so I was ignorant.

That's funny, since I'm an engineering consultant.

That really does not mean much. I have a good friend who is a engineering consultant and he is consulting because he can not hold a regular job. I'm not saying that about you, just saying that there is a spectrum here. Many consultants I know barely keep bread on the table, but... some do extraordinarily well.

Also, just because something calls itself a "journal" does not mean it's a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Many high-end MAGAZINES call themselves journals. It doesnt make them such. The Wall Street Journal is in fact a newspaper (and I guess now an online media outlet). It is certainly not part of the scientific literature.

Did you bother to look? Or are you just Reacting to a challenge to your authority?

The only thing that could cause settling would be blocks being crushed or the foundation settling. Neither of which would produce the creases.

And the proof that there are not blocks being crushed inside the pyramid is.....????? The blocks are only limestone. Put enough weight on one and it will start to crumble.

I give over however that the evidence does mainly point to the creases and concavity being purposefully created.

The concavity is so slight that engineers have come up with no practical purpose for it.

You own link says... Aesthetics, greater stabilty in the casing stones and possibly to prevent the face from sliding.

From http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

And before you argue that it wouldnt be that much harder, stop and think. By introducing the elimination of concavity in the casing layer they would have lost their ability to interchange blocks in each layer of casing.

All they would need was calibrated rods that were laid out across each face to keep the distance correct. The blocks don't all fit together with no gap you know.

The size of the blocks compared to the length of each face means that the blocks did not need to be custom made for each location. They could simply fill in the course from the outside edges and then chop down some of the inner blocks as they needed to.

[cladking]

Well...A ramp Theory is far much for reasonable than a geyser powered Pyramid construction Scheme.

On its face a ramp theory makes perfect sense.

It's only when you start realizing there should be evidence and there isn't any that one starts doubting it.

[cladking]

You own link says... Aesthetics, greater stabilty in the casing stones and possibly to prevent the face from sliding.

From http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

Great idea. It would tend to stabilize the casing stone

especially if it followed the countour. I have a lot of

doubt it would be a big factor though except at the top.

All they would need was calibrated rods that were laid out across each face to keep the distance correct. The blocks don't all fit together with no gap you know.

I don't believe this would suffice. The stones are not

laid in a perfect pyramid shape so there are varying dis-

tances from the outside of the finished pyramid to the core

stone. The cladding was customed fitted and each would vary

a lot even compared to the adjacent cladding stone.

[Qwasz]

What you are doing is poo-pooing any idea but your own.

I'm pretty much poo-pooing everything. If you re-read this thread you'll see I say things like "I have no idea" "None of these explanations seem to add up" and so on quite often.

That really does not mean much. I have a good friend who is a engineering consultant and he is consulting because he can not hold a regular job. I'm not saying that about you, just saying that there is a spectrum here. Many consultants I know barely keep bread on the table, but... some do extraordinarily well.

I should start by saying my field of engineering is not specific to this discussion. So in that respect, I am certainly not an expert. On the other hand, in my field I am at the top of the spectrum. I am fully employed and do consulting on the side. I have had more work than I know what to do with for the 15 years of my professional career. And I turn down far more work that I accept. And in that respect, I certainly do know some things about how engineering consultants work. I've been one, hired them, fired them, worked with them, lead them, and been involved with them for the entirety of my career.

Not that any of this really matters. My blanket statement was simply a response to Harte's comment about "YOu know nothing about this". I am in fact able to speak about engineering consultants from a position of great experience and knowledge. I also know the difference between a newspaper, a magazine, and a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Did you bother to look? Or are you just Reacting to a challenge to your authority?

What authority? I've been pretty clear in my position that I dont know much at all about what's going on there, and only that what I do know from my 38 years on this planet trying to educate myself about all matter of things, that all the theories I've heard seem to have some pretty big holes in them.

And the proof that there are not blocks being crushed inside the pyramid is.....????? The blocks are only limestone. Put enough weight on one and it will start to crumble.

I give over however that the evidence does mainly point to the creases and concavity being purposefully created.

So, you admit you're wrong, but you still want to argue with what I proposed as the basis for you being wrong... no thanks, I'm pretty much done talking about settling.

You own link says... Aesthetics, greater stabilty in the casing stones and possibly to prevent the face from sliding.

The article, immediately after stating those proposed reasons, debunks them. Did you read the whole article or just skim for quotes to use for argument's sake?

The final line of my link says this: "The purpose for the concavity of the Great Pyramids remains a mystery and no satisfactory explanation for this feature has been offered. The indentation is so slight that any practical function is difficult to imagine" which is basically what I said, in but uses more words.

You seem to be arguing just to argue.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Qwasz

[kmt_sesh]

Found it:

Maragioglio and Rinaldi observed that the granite casing of Menkaure's pyramid was flat, but above the granite the packing-blocks formed a concavity in the center of each face. The evidence indicates that the concavity is a functional feature of the core structure that was hidden from sight when the casing stones were applied

From http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

Thanks for digging that up, Qwasz. I'm not familiar with Maragioglio and Rinaldi so I'm interested in looking into that further. I did not know that Menkaure's pyramid also had the concave feature. The webpage mentions Miroslav Verner several times and I personally cannot recommend his book The Pyramids enough. It is one of my favorite books on pyramids. I don't recall, however, that he mentioned the concavity on Menkaure's pyramid. Not that it's an essential thing for him to have mentioned, but he does state that the Red Pyramid has this feature so I wonder why he didn't mention it for Menkaure's pyramid? Thanks for the link, though. Good stuff.

[Qwasz]

Thanks for digging that up, Qwasz. I'm not familiar with Maragioglio and Rinaldi so I'm interested in looking into that further. I did not know that Menkaure's pyramid also had the concave feature. The webpage mentions Miroslav Verner several times and I personally cannot recommend his book The Pyramids enough. It is one of my favorite books on pyramids. I don't recall, however, that he mentioned the concavity on Menkaure's pyramid. Not that it's an essential thing for him to have mentioned, but he does state that the Red Pyramid has this feature so I wonder why he didn't mention it for Menkaure's pyramid? Thanks for the link, though. Good stuff.

The concave feature, although it seems small, is truly a great mystery. One would THINK it would make casing more difficult. But if it doesnt serve another purpose, and it cant be seen, one would assume that in some way it made casing easier, since that's the only possible explanation.

This is reinforced by the fact that the Red, GP1 both have it. Then they abandon it at GP2 but bring it back for GP3. For whatever reason, they like those bent sides.

Crazy Egyptians.

By the way, did they case any more pyramids after GP3?

Edited June 2, 2010 by Qwasz