Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
cormac mac airt

Blocks in the Great Pyramid

350 posts in this topic

Quite often when discussing the construction of the Great Pyramid the estimated number

of 2,500,000 blocks is brought up as the factual quantity used in its construction.

Knowing that W. M. Flinders Petrie (who performed the most comprehensive measurements

to date), M. Eyth and G. Dormion ALL determined that there was a natural outcrop

or massif located within the structure, the following calculations show that there were

far fewer than 2.5 million blocks.

EstimatedquantityofGreatPyramidblocks.jpg

Even if one were to use the average of the above 6 estimates, at 2,021,511 blocks that is still significantly lower than 2.5 million blocks.

And, however marginal a difference, it does not take into account the various assorted chambers and passages.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite often when discussing the construction of the Great Pyramid the estimated number

of 2,500,000 blocks is brought up as the factual quantity used in its construction.

Knowing that W. M. Flinders Petrie (who performed the most comprehensive measurements

to date), M. Eyth and G. Dormion ALL determined that there was a natural outcrop

or massif located within the structure, the following calculations show that there were

far fewer than 2.5 million blocks.

EstimatedquantityofGreatPyramidblocks.jpg

Even if one were to use the average of the above 6 estimates, at 2,021,511 blocks that is still significantly lower than 2.5 million blocks.

And, however marginal a difference, it does not take into account the various assorted chambers and passages.

cormac

cormac - Nice work. If you remember the Raynaud et. al. paper, they consider the 23% figure to be a minimal value and propose a model for the height of the massif at ~ 20m. Would be interesting to run that figure also. In any case, the calculated differential from the 2.5 million figure is noteworthy.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac - Nice work. If you remember the Raynaud et. al. paper, they consider the 23% figure to be a minimal value and propose a model for the height of the massif at ~ 20m. Would be interesting to run that figure also. In any case, the calculated differential from the 2.5 million figure is noteworthy.

Thanks Swede. That can be arranged. :tu:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the calculations, cormac...I will study them with interest.

Since these discussions are ultimately about total work required, how do you calculate the delta thereof when factoring in chambers lined with polished granite stonework?

Less...more...no change...not relevant?

Also, how does the fitting of the casing stones contribute to the overall scale of the project?

Edited by lilthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above modified to include the proposed height for the internal massif of the Great Pyramid.

EstimatedquantityofGreatPyramidblocks2.jpg

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cormac - Nice work. If you remember the Raynaud et. al. paper, they consider the 23% figure to be a minimal value and propose a model for the height of the massif at ~ 20m. Would be interesting to run that figure also. In any case, the calculated differential from the 2.5 million figure is noteworthy.

.

ROFL

Considering the lack of evidence for anything higher than 25' (~7.5 meters) 20

meters becomes quite a stretch. The average known height of this so called massif

is about 8' or about about 10% of the lowest estimate here.

The fact remains that if there's a hill here that it just means harder work for the

builders to lug them up th hill.

More importantly though is that no one doubts the ancints' ability to lift stone a

little bit. The question whether there are 2,000,000 stones or 3,000,000 stones in

this pyramid is how did they get th top ones up there.

Lowering the estimate of the number of stones means nothing except to quarrying and

no one has yet disputed their ability to even mine 20,000,000 stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above modified to include the proposed height for the internal massif of the Great Pyramid.

EstimatedquantityofGreatPyramidblocks2.jpg

cormac

Well done. Factors to ponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the calculations, cormac...I will study them with interest.

Since these discussions are ultimately about total work required, how do you calculate the delta thereof when factoring in chambers lined with polished granite stonework?

Less...more...no change...not relevant?

Also, how does the fitting of the casing stones contribute to the overall scale of the project?

I'm not an engineer so can't answer HOW MUCH work was involved. What I am attempting to do here is show that too much given information is being left out of the equation, most likely in an effort by some to make the construction process appear more prohibitive than is otherwise evidenced.

I think the whole problem with the granite starts with using the 2.5 million block quantity as if ALL blocks were limestone. Obviously, they're not. And also obviously where granite was in use, it would preclude the usage of limestone (as well as decrease the quantity) of blocks in use. It also entirely disregards the internal massif, which IS there.

I've only seen one estimate on dimensions for the casing blocks, given as 5x8x12 meters, with estimates of quantity ranging between 115,000 and 200,000 blocks. Needless to say this far exceeds the volume of the Great Pyramid by a ridiculous margin, so can't be taken seriously.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL

Considering the lack of evidence for anything higher than 25' (~7.5 meters) 20

meters becomes quite a stretch. The average known height of this so called massif

is about 8' or about about 10% of the lowest estimate here.

The fact remains that if there's a hill here that it just means harder work for the

builders to lug them up th hill.

More importantly though is that no one doubts the ancints' ability to lift stone a

little bit. The question whether there are 2,000,000 stones or 3,000,000 stones in

this pyramid is how did they get th top ones up there.

Lowering the estimate of the number of stones means nothing except to quarrying and

no one has yet disputed their ability to even mine 20,000,000 stones.

Your figures would not appear to reflect current, or even earlier understandings. We have been over this before. See page 19 re: Eyth (12.5 m) and inselburgs.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:iZVycF8vmdwJ:hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/95/86/PDF/PyramidsSR.pdf+Raynaud+geological+pyramids&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgiE7a1HYVEfgBW3TBENd0MTQ382jL3dRhOtDaXvc5WmuJQwr4-N2DlXv3wa1UURDyR-VJJTKRMy9XowIFlfE_eX6sadDOrPiStROJwrWFgGrxgWP5wdOWG8B7HL8TTaHH1kfgL&sig=AHIEtbQV6bbpRXfuGWH8BOJBD8R4QT--UQ

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL

Considering the lack of evidence for anything higher than 25' (~7.5 meters) 20

meters becomes quite a stretch. The average known height of this so called massif

is about 8' or about about 10% of the lowest estimate here.

The fact remains that if there's a hill here that it just means harder work for the

builders to lug them up th hill.

More importantly though is that no one doubts the ancints' ability to lift stone a

little bit. The question whether there are 2,000,000 stones or 3,000,000 stones in

this pyramid is how did they get th top ones up there.

Lowering the estimate of the number of stones means nothing except to quarrying and

no one has yet disputed their ability to even mine 20,000,000 stones.

This from the guy who has repeatedly and completely dismissed the existance of the massif, on multiple occassions, as well as claimed that there were no fewer than 2.5 million blocks. Both of which are incorrect. :rolleyes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the guy who has repeatedly and completely dismissed the existance of the massif, on multiple occassions, as well as claimed that there were no fewer than 2.5 million blocks. Both of which are incorrect. :rolleyes:

I've never said such a thing.

I've said that this is a 6 1/2 million ton pyramid and if the average

block size calculation is correct then there are about 2 1/2 million

stones in it. You can't change the size of th pyramid by changing eit-

her the estimate of the number of stones or the estimate of their aver-

age size. That's not the way it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never said such a thing.

I've said that this is a 6 1/2 million ton pyramid and if the average

block size calculation is correct then there are about 2 1/2 million

stones in it. You can't change the size of th pyramid by changing eit-

her the estimate of the number of stones or the estimate of their aver-

age size. That's not the way it works.

Yes, you have, and many other wrong things to boot.

How did the Egyptians build pyramids? Post #553:

It is a known fact that the height of the so called massif was less than 25' near the center and there is no evidence of any sort for anything at all higher than this.

It must be capable of lifting enough stones (2.5 million) to build the struc-

ture.

The GP - A Tomb or Not a Tomb? Post #243

I don't know. All I know is what I see….I see a grotto that is a mere 20' higher

than the foundation of the pyramid which was the top of any hill that might have

been under here.

And it’s really irrelevant what you see when there are experts in the field who have concluded THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

Pyramids built by aliens Post #1501

It weighs 6 1/2 million tons.

Not unless you’re including the massif.

Post #1506

There is little to suggest a massif and there is evidence against

it. It's {B(l x w)/ 3 } 2.7 = 6 1/2 million ton.

So, any more lies you’d like to tell?

Post #1512

In other words if there's a massif it is entirely contained within the pyramid AND a point near the center is less than a mere twenty feet high.

What’s wrong here, can’t remember which lie you told last?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if one were to use the average of the above 6 estimates, at 2,021,511 blocks that is still significantly lower than 2.5 million blocks.

And, however marginal a difference, it does not take into account the various assorted chambers and passages.

Does the size of the pyramid and the size of the blocks include the areas between the blocks? Even if the average space between blocks was 1/2 inch or 1 centimeter, it would average up to quite a lot of blocks over the entire volume of the pyramid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the size of the pyramid and the size of the blocks include the areas between the blocks? Even if the average space between blocks was 1/2 inch or 1 centimeter, it would average up to quite a lot of blocks over the entire volume of the pyramid.

Hello DieChecker, the previous calculations only correspond to the maximum number of blocks that can be determined based on the available information. And that's the problem I've been trying to get people to realize who attempt to utilize the 2.5 million block estimate as if it were a fact. The exact number of blocks, barring complete dismantling of the GP, can never be known. Nor can the total amount of plugged gaps between blocks, nor the exact configuration of the core assembly. This is the main reason, IMO, that Egyptologists do not attempt to utilize the commonly quoted estimate as anything but an estimate. Unfortunately, there are some here that believe that they are in a position to know more than the experts who've actually been on-site and made the necessary observations or measurements.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello DieChecker, the previous calculations only correspond to the maximum number of blocks that can be determined based on the available information. And that's the problem I've been trying to get people to realize who attempt to utilize the 2.5 million block estimate as if it were a fact. The exact number of blocks, barring complete dismantling of the GP, can never be known. Nor can the total amount of plugged gaps between blocks, nor the exact configuration of the core assembly. This is the main reason, IMO, that Egyptologists do not attempt to utilize the commonly quoted estimate as anything but an estimate. Unfortunately, there are some here that believe that they are in a position to know more than the experts who've actually been on-site and made the necessary observations or measurements.

This is a pyramid;

http://0.tqn.com/d/archaeology/1/0/t/f/great_pyramid.jpg

It is not only a great pyramid but The Great Pyramid. No one can see a mountain

in it and no one can see air holes in it. We know where much of the bottom is and

there's no evidence of any mountain under it.

As you can see it appears to be made out of stone. An object of an object this size

is easily computed to be about 6 1/2 million tons. Thi is a computed weight and the

fact that there is no scale big enough to weigh it doesn't make it any lighter. Look

at the picture again. Does it really matter if there are 2,000,000 3 1/4 ton stones

or three million 2 1/6 ton stones.

It's still a 6 1/2 million ton pile of stones no matter how you shake a pencil at it.

It's still 480' tall. It still required a lot of lifting of stone.

Why suppose there are large holes and the like in it when it's a known fact that the

outside is nearly the same density as limestone. If they were going to leave voids

they would be concentrated on the outside where they wouldn't weaken the structure

and would reduce the weight on the interior.

Mountains and voids don't make sense, are unevidenced, and as far as lifting is con-

cerned are mostly irrelevent. Why keep on with supposition to make this appear small-

er than it is. Again I refer you to the picture.

I'd also refer you to the various imaging thaty has been done inside the pyramids and

have turned up no voids of note other than an anomaly paralleling the horizontal passage.

The passages and chambers are insignificant in volume and required vastly more effort

to build than not to have built because thy are water tight and composed of heavier and

harder to work granite rather than the soft limestone. These are the simple facts. No

calculations can change them.

Of course all the numbers are estimates. This is the real world not a drawing board

where this or that can be eraswed and redone. It's complete and it's made out of stone;

about 2 1/2 million 2 1/2 ton ones.

Have you never noticed that 2 1/2 times 2 1/2 doesn't equal 6 1/2. This 4% error helps

to show that these are estimates. I don't believe the total is off more than slightly

but the other two might be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, more 'crap in-crap out'. What you consider to be the facts is irrelevant to what is actually known about the Great Pyramid and the plateau it was constructed on. But then, we all already knew that. Thanks for once again confirming that for us, though. :tu:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive cormac. I tip my hat to you my friend. Excellent work! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks booNy, much appreciated.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice analysis, cormac.

It makes engineering sense that the GP would have been built on a site surrounding a (relatively) small massif, as not only would that have meant less actual block-work needed for the construction, but also the height of the massif could be utilised by placing wooden 'cranes' (essentially fulcrum levers) atop it, allowing for a considerably easier construction of the pyramid up to a greater height than if the GP was built on flat ground.

Thus, the 'ramp' phase of construction would entail only the higher courses, where less stonework was required, naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two million stones, five million stones does it really matter its an incredible piece of architecture and we still don't know how they managed to build it so perfectly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two million stones, five million stones does it really matter its an incredible piece of architecture and we still don't know how they managed to build it so perfectly

It depends on how loosely you use the term "perfectly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on how loosely you use the term "perfectly."

It is in ruins.

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

Yet is so perfectly constructed we didn't even know that it was an 8-sided

structure until we could fly. Before it was in ruins it was even more perfect

since it there were any flaws in is shape they could be corrected in installing

the cladding. I visitor might see only perfectly smooth white structure and

water tight granite interiors. The cladding was so perfect that Herodotus

couldn't find seams closer than 20' apart even 2200 years after it was built.

It is oriented perfectly N/ S and even the tunneling underneath is perfect.

Small gaps and tiny imperfections are about equivalent to having a few egg

shells left over after you make an omelette; irrelevent. We saw what happened

the last time detractors tried to do better; they needed modern machinery and

still made an eyesore that wasn't worthy of even blocking the shadow of the

real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*moved*

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quarry for the pyramid itself was right there at the site, the only imports were the Tura cladding and the Granite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quarry for the pyramid itself was right there at the site, the only imports were the Tura cladding and the Granite.

okay ... thanks

should that post be here or at the "how they built ... " think ?

rather than edit maybe it should be move :huh:

@cormac

duly noted :D

*edit* decided to move

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.