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 5
Still Waters

Pyramid stones were transported over wet sand

740 posts in this topic

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

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they use elephants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

schlitten-ochsen.gif

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Interesting topic, and pic in link.

Thanks, SW.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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,

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This sounds like a crack pot theory to me. You can see from the article that they even say that it was Egyptian slaves that pulled the stones. It has been explained by experts that slaves did not build the pyramids. They had specialist workers and whole villages of workers grew up around where ever pyramids were being built. Things like pottery, buildings remnants, bone fragments have been discovered near pyramids. I think that some external intelligence taught them how to build these massive structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a crack pot theory to me. You can see from the article that they even say that it was Egyptian slaves that pulled the stones. It has been explained by experts that slaves did not build the pyramids. They had specialist workers and whole villages of workers grew up around where ever pyramids were being built. Things like pottery, buildings remnants, bone fragments have been discovered near pyramids. I think that some external intelligence taught them how to build these massive structures.

External from you, certainly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

When I spoke of "technological debris" I was thinking of something a bit more sophisticated than standing stones. I didn't make it clear, but I was responding to 6.6.6's idea 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..." If there have been times when our ancestors were "...much more advanced than our current state...", I'd expect there to be evidence of that. Standing stones aren't evidence of a society much more advanced than ours.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There appear to be several problems with this "experiment". Chief among them

is that they didn't state that any provision was made for scaling of the sand. They

used a single ski pulled from the center but a real sled wouldn't act the same way

no matter how it was pulled. Men walkking ahead of the sled would break the sand.

The sled wasn't pulled from the ski horizontal to the ground. The sand is huge rel-

ative the sled which could also affect results.

But the biggest problems are really evidential and in practicality. The actual evi-

dence shows they used specially built pathways lubricated with wet fine clay (this

is actually slippery) for moving heavy weights. In the real world, even if you could

get the skis to stay on top of the sand it would still require more effort to move than

a more slippery surface and you'd merely move stone draggers to work as water

haulers.

They simply didn't drag stones from the workers village to the pyramid. This is a-

nother attempt to save the paradigm but it is already dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a crack pot theory to me. You can see from the article that they even say that it was Egyptian slaves that pulled the stones. It has been explained by experts that slaves did not build the pyramids. They had specialist workers and whole villages of workers grew up around where ever pyramids were being built. Things like pottery, buildings remnants, bone fragments have been discovered near pyramids. I think that some external intelligence taught them how to build these massive structures.

The FOM Foundation is proving resistant to being googled.

I agree that it's just another crackpot idea with no basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There appear to be several problems with this "experiment". Chief among them

is that they didn't state that any provision was made for scaling of the sand.

I think it unwise to assume Egypt was a land of loose sand! It used to be lush and green! With rain! Besides some desert areas have hard compacted ground

.

Edited by seeder
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that some external intelligence taught them how to build these massive structures.

Whut? Give kids some blocks and sooner or later they build pyramids!

building-blocks-300x200.jpg

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wats next? Pumapunku builders have a super sharp nails?.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Of course little things like no two stones are the exact same size as would be if they were poured and chisel marks on the stones tend to refute the poured theory.

6 people like this

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 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.