Accepted pyramid building theories 'wrong'

[Kaa-Tzik]

Is this just a theory or has he obtained cores from deep inside the pyramid indicating that there is indeed infill at the inner sections of the pyramid, behind the stones??

He has worked in the Step Pyramid and taken cores. There is, as usual, a lot of heat here about the GP, yet this guy has not worked on it, nor does he even mention it. I searched youtube for the documentary showing his work in the Step Pyramid, but could not find it. It is well worth watching when it becomes available though.

[+DieChecker]

Is this just a theory or has he obtained cores from deep inside the pyramid indicating that there is indeed infill at the inner sections of the pyramid, behind the stones??

That would be interesting to know. I wonder if that would be considered "Damaging" to the pyramids and even allowed? Maybe he's taking these cores when he is preparing his renovation method that stablizes the stones? Even then, would that be only on the Step Pyramid? Or has his company taken cores from the other great pyramids?

[Willie B Herd]

and your evidence for these 'Cranes'???

My theory, I have no evidence, and there's no evidence to disprove this either. The Egyptians were very practical, and probably used the easiest methods possible.

Harte, "And Willie, if the Egyptians had compound pulleys, why didn't they use them to move large stones? They depict no such device in the artwork showing them moving megalithic statuary."

They used sleds to MOVE stones, and cranes to LIFT them.

I don't have any evidence for pulleys and there's no evidence to disprove this either. At beginning, (pg. two) I stated, "pulleys heplful, but not absolutely necessary.".......a simple crane without pulleys could've been used.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Willie B Herd

[questionmark]

I have looked up the pertinent literature but could not find anything about taking core samples of step pyramids... but maybe it is not published yet.

[Willie B Herd]

'taniwha' timestamp

ingenious.

Personally I like this technique. It looks good on paper and is it practical.

Another practical option.

They could've just used one 'saw-horse' per stone IF it had a platform on top to facilitate sliding stone onto next level and this would've set up stone for the next lift. Also possible they had one, (or more) 'saw-horse(s)' per level to speed up the entire building process.

Guess what??? No evidence for this theory either!!!

Edited December 22, 2013 by Willie B Herd

[ShadowSot]

My theory, I have no evidence, and there's no evidence to disprove this either. The Egyptians were very practical, and probably used the easiest methods possible.

Harte, "And Willie, if the Egyptians had compound pulleys, why didn't they use them to move large stones? They depict no such device in the artwork showing them moving megalithic statuary."

They used sleds to MOVE stones, and cranes to LIFT them.

I don't have any evidence for pulleys and there's no evidence to disprove this either. At beginning, (pg. two) I stated, "pulleys heplful, but not absolutely necessary.".......a simple crane without pulleys could've been used.

Then what you are proposing is not a theory, it' an idea. An unevidenced one.

And there being no evidence to disprove it isn't actually a benefit to your claims.

[questionmark]

My theory, I have no evidence, and there's no evidence to disprove this either. The Egyptians were very practical, and probably used the easiest methods possible.

Harte, "And Willie, if the Egyptians had compound pulleys, why didn't they use them to move large stones? They depict no such device in the artwork showing them moving megalithic statuary."

They used sleds.

I don't have any evidence for pulleys and there's no evidence to disprove this either. At beginning, (pg. one) I stated, "pulleys would be heplful, but not absolutely necessary.".......a simple crane without pulleys could've been used.

The crane theory has several holes, the most notable that we have found no evidence for any crane nor pulley while we certainly have found sledges, ropes, chisels, mallets and similar tools.

The first evidence we have of the use of pulleys would be in Mesopotamia, about 1000 years later. The next problem is that the first evidence we have of cranes are the trispastos, but that would be 2200 years after the Great pyramids, in addition that the most powerful ancient crane found to this day are the Roman treadmill cranes, but their lifting capability is pretty much limited to around ton or less, hardly adequate to lift any of the GPs blocks.

Last but not least, until the industrial age it was quite a challenge to build a crane capable of sustaining weights over a ton, and not until steel was available in large quantities were such machines built in large scale. Wood may be capable of taking a lot but not as free load on a sleeper.

[The_Spartan]

Though not using any infill at the center and retaining walls made of block work as detailed in Peter James's theory, the Pyramid of Djedefre was actually built around a hillock.

The pyramid was built over a natural mound and the chambers were created using the 'pit and ramp' method, previously used on some mastaba tombs

Just visited cintec's site and looked into the two mentions of the step pyramid - no details of them havign taken core samples is given.

[Willie B Herd]

SS, "And there being no evidence to disprove it isn't actually a benefit to your claims."

It isn't detrimental either.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Willie B Herd

[The_Spartan]

'taniwha' timestamp

ingenious.

Personally I like this technique. It looks good on paper and is it practical.

Another practical option.

They could've just used one 'saw-horse' per stone IF it had a platform on top to facilitate sliding stone onto next level and this would've set up stone for the next lift. Also possible they had one, (or more) 'saw-horse(s)' per level to speed up the entire building process.

One difficulty in the gif you have posted is- after the stone block has been pushed up the rack, it cannot stay on the rack to allow the rack to be positioned to move the stone block to a higher level. Not with the stone block sitting on the rack. The stone would have to be moved on to the pyramid, then position the rack to move the stone block higher, move the stone block on the rack again and on.

[Willie B Herd]

One difficulty in the gif you have posted is- after the stone block has been pushed up the rack, it cannot stay on the rack to allow the rack to be positioned to move the stone block to a higher level. Not with the stone block sitting on the rack. The stone would have to be moved on to the pyramid, then position the rack to move the stone block higher, move the stone block on the rack again and on.

The use of multiple racks w/ the platforms I had mentioned, (post # 80) would easily solve this problem.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Willie B Herd

[questionmark]

The use of multiple racks w/ the platforms I had mentioned would easily solve this problem.

My problem here is that we are not talking about a little rock but blocks that are as heavy as a car.... without wheels... moving them along a board of wood would have been quite a challenge... never mind the wear and tear on the wood.

[+DieChecker]

The fact that they Could have used cranes or levering, does not mean that the theory with the most evidence, ramps, is what should be considered what they used. Isn't that science to use the idea/theory that has the most evidence? At least till another theory comes along that has more evidence, or less disputed evidence?

I personnally feel that several systems were used. Gigantic ramps hundreds of feet wide would be the obvious choice for the lower 1/3rd of any pyramid, which is like 75% of the total mass of the pyramid. Then multiple smaller ramps could have been used in a spiral, and then levering, or cranes, or just people with ropes pulling could have finished the last few percentages of blocks.

[+DieChecker]

My problem here is that we are not talking about a little rock but blocks that are as heavy as a car.... without wheels... moving them along a board of wood would have been quite a challenge... never mind the wear and tear on the wood.

I think it might have been done near the top, because the blocks there were much smaller, and there were a lot less of them to place, and with belaying ropes tieing them off from up the pyramid side to prevent them from leaning outward.

[cormac mac airt]

The use of multiple racks w/ the platforms I had mentioned, (post # 80) would easily solve this problem.

It looks great on paper but the average depth of each step on the GP, in order to achieve the original height of 481 feet, is only about 22 inches in. The average 2.5 ton blocks themselves are larger. Looks more like an accident waiting to happen.

cormac

[ShadowSot]

SS, "And there being no evidence to disprove it isn't actually a benefit to your claims."

It isn't detrimental either.

when proposing a new idea, it sort of is. There is no evidence for your claim, while there is evidenc eof other methods. In order to make your idea likely, it requires evidence.

[taniwha]

I think people have to remember the Egyptians did not wake up in the desert one day after some sort of stoneage slumber and build pyramids. They were very intelligent and creative, well travelled and would have adapted the best technology and brains available to their advantage.

My problem here is that we are not talking about a little rock but blocks that are as heavy as a car.... without wheels... moving them along a board of wood would have been quite a challenge... never mind the wear and tear on the wood.

A lot can be achieved with wood, rope, levers, swivels, seesaws, pulleys, ramps, wedges, oxen, stones. sleds, hard sweat and tears to name a few. Applying these resources in any meaningful way achieves a pyramid.

It looks great on paper but the average depth of each step on the GP, in order to achieve the original height of 481 feet, is only about 22 inches in. The average 2.5 ton blocks themselves are larger. Looks more like an accident waiting to happen.

cormac

It is easy to build a pyramid once you know how. They are no accident.

[SHaYap]

I'd always believed that the problem was never about the pyramidal structure up itself, the problems are more of the incorporating and getting the chambers with the passageways aligned and securely intact within it, no blueprints ... that's a mighty feat in itself, never mind the scale.

[The_Spartan]

It is easy to build a pyramid once you know how. They are no accident.

Of course they are no accident.

But the plethora of theories out there, each with its own valid points, makes it quite tough to identify the best suitable methods the Egyptians would have probably employed to construct the pyramids.

well...the basic fact is that we don't know.

we know in parts that

the wheel or any complicated chain pulley set up was not present in Egypt during that time

the use of sleds and manual labor is attested from the records and art.

the only thing we don't know is how did they get the stone blocks up and up.

some say external ramps

some say internal ramps

some have got idiotic aliens with their geyser mechanisms as an explanation to have built the pyramids

some with a theory that the blocks were not quarried but poured.

on and on...

we don't know. you don't know. no one knows.

neither does Peter James and Cintec know. its all speculation.

its all a big bloody mass brain maxturbation!!!

[cormac mac airt]

I think people have to remember the Egyptians did not wake up in the desert one day after some sort of stoneage slumber and build pyramids. They were very intelligent and creative, well travelled and would have adapted the best technology and brains available to their advantage.

A lot can be achieved with wood, rope, levers, swivels, seesaws, pulleys, ramps, wedges, oxen, stones. sleds, hard sweat and tears to name a few. Applying these resources in any meaningful way achieves a pyramid.

It is easy to build a pyramid once you know how. They are no accident.

I wasn't referring to the pyramids being an accident. I was referring to the method of moving the blocks presented in the post I replied to being an accident waiting to happen. Each step of the GP is about 22 inches deep while the blocks, at an estimated 40 cubic feet, would be about 41 X 41 X 41 inches in size and averaging 2.5 tons. One slip of a block, which is more likely than not, and it could take out everything and everyone in its path below. And while there is at least one person here that doesn't understand that Peter James claim of knowing how "the Egyptian pyramids were built" and that "the traditional view, that hundreds of workers manoeuvred two million stone blocks, laying one every three minutes, is impossible" refers to the Giza Pyramids then yes, Peter James is claiming to know how ALL the pyramids were built.

cormac

[Willie B Herd]

Of course they are no accident.

But the plethora of theories out there, each with its own valid points, makes it quite tough to identify the best suitable methods the Egyptians would have probably employed to construct the pyramids.

well...the basic fact is that we don't know.

we know in parts that

the wheel or any complicated chain pulley set up was not present in Egypt during that time

the use of sleds and manual labor is attested from the records and art.

the only thing we don't know is how did they get the stone blocks up and up.

some say external ramps

some say internal ramps

some have got idiotic aliens with their geyser mechanisms as an explanation to have built the pyramids

some with a theory that the blocks were not quarried but poured.

on and on...

we don't know. you don't know. no one knows.

neither does Peter James and Cintec know. its all speculation.

its all a big bloody mass brain maxturbation!!!

I agree w/ you here 100%, EXCEPT for them not having the wheel. It's true they didn't have Chariots until 1,000 yrs. later, BUT this doesn't mean they didn't have the wheel, and had other uses for it.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Willie B Herd

[The_Spartan]

I agree w/ you here 100%, EXCEPT for them not having the wheel. It's true they didn't have Chariots until 1,000 yrs. later, BUT this doesn't mean they didn't have the wheel, and had other uses for it.

But never for transportation.

If it were, it would have been shown in arts found in the temples in place of the sleds.

[Willie B Herd]

when proposing a new idea, it sort of is. There is no evidence for your claim, while there is evidenc eof other methods. In order to make your idea likely, it requires evidence.

If Peter James can have his theory, I can have mine. (I'll take ramps, pulleys, and cranes over geysers any day.)

Edited December 26, 2013 by Willie B Herd

[Willie B Herd]

But never for transportation.

If it were, it would have been shown in arts found in the temples in place of the sleds.

I never said anything about the Egyptians using the wheel for transportation.

[Kaa-Tzik]

I wonder if this thread makes some record for the amount of mischevious mis-representing happening.....