Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Paul Hai

Giza Pyramid construction

1,175 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hanslune
24 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

It went against the grain, voting up a nutter, but once in a while self-ridicule and parody like this must be rewarded!

I’m not an engineer, nor am I the reincarnation of Imhotep, so I’m not pretending to have all the answers.  In fact I only have questions.

Let's study the suggestion that the Great Pyramid has a multi-step core that was built first.  Then outer stones were added, then the casing stones?  Could anyone seriously supporting this idea please clarify the order of build?  I’m asking because I think it matters.

 

1381668317_threewaysnottobuildapyramidcropped.jpg.7c18272000d8334afef35dd70e361714.jpg

 

1)      You could either build the entire core, then add the outer (red) stones (how?), then the casing stones (blue).  This would mean lifting every casing stone up every course, one at a time, using RAMPS.

2)      Or you could try to complete each level in turn from the top down?  This looks suicidal to me, and would still need to use RAMPS to move blue blocks over the red ones.

3)      Or you could try to complete it from the bottom upwards but this would mean dragging loads of stones over your pristine lower casing stones, and would still need RAMPS to get the blue into place over the red.

So could anyone advocating the five-step core approach please tell me how the pyramid would be finished?

Anyway, I have a bigger concern with this model.  Is the best way to ensure stability of such a monstrous build to overlap / interlock the stones?  I’m pretty sure that’s what is proposed for the beige core, then the red outer, then the blue casing stones?  My question is – what happens at the beige-red interface?  As I understand, in this model all the beige faces are smooth, to allow stones to slide up them.  (I realise I’ve omitted the 72° slope but you try drawing stuff like this with no talent.)  When the red outer stones are laid against the beige core stones, even with the benefits of the angle and cement, doesn’t this create a very weak joint?  In fact the red-beige interface is a plane that circles the entire edifice, and is weakest at the top of each giant step where there is least mass above to hold it in place. 

I suggest that this design would be extremely vulnerable to seismic activity.  We are told that earthquakes in the 14th century loosened most of the casing stones.  Would these events also have shaken loose at least some of the red region?  Is there any evidence to suggest this?

I ask these questions pour doubt, not scorn, on the notion of a stepped core.  I can see how such a design would evolve from mastabas, but those are much smaller, flat-topped buildings designed as stepped structures.  I am not persuaded by the density imaging maps being shown here.  They appear to reveal surface details rather than information about the core.

Thanos writes (post #1112):

“Regardless, though the hillock it is built around and elevated interior features create some unique possibilities, I think the likelihood of G1 having a stepped core in one form or another is high. It would be odd if it weren't.”

I disagree.  I suggest that the architects of the Great Pyramid, faced with a task of such a gigantic scale, might have thought differently.  Rather than simply trying to scale up existing jobs, they were smart enough to anticipate problems and engineer such ingenious solutions that their handiwork is still there nearly 5000 years later.  It’s not just the core that needs to be solid – the entire structure needs to be sturdy throughout.  Each layer has to be completed so the next can overlap and interlock, spreading the weight effectively and providing the maximum structural support.

Is anyone still reading this?  I know I do go on a bit!

 

These images may help. The diagram shows the theoretical way the core, backing stones and cladding were positioned then there is one of the existing GP cladding stone with backing stones,  the other two show existing cladding stones on G2 and another pyramid

a1NtUhP.png

45VSJUU.jpg

2OliDcF.jpg

qn67cEA.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hanslune
31 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

?  This appears to show a solid core still standing, surrounded by rubble that has fallen down.  Which hasn't happened to the great pyramids, suggesting a very different internal structure.

Looks like you agree with me - as pyramids grew bigger the ancient architects realised they couldn't reply on simply scaling up existing designs, so a new approach was needed.

meidum%20cross%20section.jpg

 

Mark Lehner in his book ‘The Complete Pyramids’states; “In many ways Meidum is the most mysterious of all the great pyramids”

 

 

Pyramid_in_Medum.png

1280px-.Pir%C3%A1mide_escalonada_de_Meid

 

Meidum_map_pyramid.jpg

main-qimg-872c641c78f3654b91b20b43262ac2

 

The problem

 

7-f3ac93c086.jpg

Quote

The second extension turned the original step pyramid design into a true pyramid by filling in the steps with limestone encasing. While this approach is consistent with the design of the other true pyramids, Meidum was affected by construction errors. Firstly, the outer layer was founded on sand and not on rock, like the inner layers. Secondly, the inner step pyramids had been designed as the final stage. Thus the outer surface was polished and the platforms of the steps were not horizontal, but fell off to the outside. This severely compromised the stability and is likely to have caused the collapse of the Meidum Pyramid in a downpour while the building was still under construction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meidum

A detailed guide to this pyramid

https://www.academia.edu/32410244/The_Meidum_Pyramid

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
6 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Being "in one form or another...high" doesn't make it a fact that it's 5-stepped though, much to the detriment of CK's fantasy, which ultimately relies on a non-existant cold water geyser on the Giza Plateau.

cormac

I am confused-is the conversation pyramid construction or Cladking's mental projectile vomit? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

I am confused-is the conversation pyramid construction or Cladking's mental projectile vomit? 

The latter since any time steps, or anything else for that matter, are mentioned he automatically assumes he’s being vindicated or twists it in attempt to appear so. He’s been doing it for at least the last 14 years and STILL doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Whomever resurrected his corpse should be flogged. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 hours ago, Harte said:

Denial of precision was in regard to the GP and other pyramids, but your attempt at substituting a straw man duly noted.

Just some info - if all you ever do is watch fringe vids and read fringe sites, you'll never know that Egyptology has already proposed workable solutions as to how these were done.

Harte

I meant to ask @Hanslune as well; but, how far did you get past "Egyptologist couldn't care less"?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen

Would someone be as kind to give me a brief summary as to:

1) what the feck is the original point of this thread

2) what the feck are you lot debating

3) not sure on 3rd I'll get back to you

I'm still finding it amusing even though I have the foggiest as to what's go on so as you were chaps.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

It went against the grain, voting up a nutter, but once in a while self-ridicule and parody like this must be rewarded!

I’m not an engineer, nor am I the reincarnation of Imhotep, so I’m not pretending to have all the answers.  In fact I only have questions.

Let's study the suggestion that the Great Pyramid has a multi-step core that was built first.  Then outer stones were added, then the casing stones?  Could anyone seriously supporting this idea please clarify the order of build?  I’m asking because I think it matters.

 

1381668317_threewaysnottobuildapyramidcropped.jpg.7c18272000d8334afef35dd70e361714.jpg

 

1)      You could either build the entire core, then add the outer (red) stones (how?), then the casing stones (blue).  This would mean lifting every casing stone up every course, one at a time, using RAMPS.

2)      Or you could try to complete each level in turn from the top down?  This looks suicidal to me, and would still need to use RAMPS to move blue blocks over the red ones.

3)      Or you could try to complete it from the bottom upwards but this would mean dragging loads of stones over your pristine lower casing stones, and would still need RAMPS to get the blue into place over the red.

So could anyone advocating the five-step core approach please tell me how the pyramid would be finished?

Anyway, I have a bigger concern with this model.  Is the best way to ensure stability of such a monstrous build to overlap / interlock the stones?  I’m pretty sure that’s what is proposed for the beige core, then the red outer, then the blue casing stones?  My question is – what happens at the beige-red interface?  As I understand, in this model all the beige faces are smooth, to allow stones to slide up them.  (I realise I’ve omitted the 72° slope but you try drawing stuff like this with no talent.)  When the red outer stones are laid against the beige core stones, even with the benefits of the angle and cement, doesn’t this create a very weak joint?  In fact the red-beige interface is a plane that circles the entire edifice, and is weakest at the top of each giant step where there is least mass above to hold it in place. 

I suggest that this design would be extremely vulnerable to seismic activity.  We are told that earthquakes in the 14th century loosened most of the casing stones.  Would these events also have shaken loose at least some of the red region?  Is there any evidence to suggest this?

I ask these questions pour doubt, not scorn, on the notion of a stepped core.  I can see how such a design would evolve from mastabas, but those are much smaller, flat-topped buildings designed as stepped structures.  I am not persuaded by the density imaging maps being shown here.  They appear to reveal surface details rather than information about the core.

Thanos writes (post #1112):

“Regardless, though the hillock it is built around and elevated interior features create some unique possibilities, I think the likelihood of G1 having a stepped core in one form or another is high. It would be odd if it weren't.”

I disagree.  I suggest that the architects of the Great Pyramid, faced with a task of such a gigantic scale, might have thought differently.  Rather than simply trying to scale up existing jobs, they were smart enough to anticipate problems and engineer such ingenious solutions that their handiwork is still there nearly 5000 years later.  It’s not just the core that needs to be solid – the entire structure needs to be sturdy throughout.  Each layer has to be completed so the next can overlap and interlock, spreading the weight effectively and providing the maximum structural support.

Is anyone still reading this?  I know I do go on a bit!

There's a scene in the following documentary where Lehner is showing how the core is mostly fill comprised of rubble and mortar.  He also show were the bedrock was carved away in parts.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/program/secrets-of-the-pyramids

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
38 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

I am confused-is the conversation pyramid construction or Cladking's mental projectile vomit? 

We've had plenty of potentially interesting ancient Egypt threads, but inevitably cladking tries to hijack every such thread for the sake of his pet "theory." There is no potential for useful debate because  cladking cannot offer realistic evidence to support his claims and does not even understand the workings of historical methodology or how to build and frame a working theory.

I'll come down off my soapbox now. ^_^

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
4 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

We've had plenty of potentially interesting ancient Egypt threads, but inevitably cladking tries to hijack every such thread for the sake of his pet "theory." There is no potential for useful debate because  cladking cannot offer realistic evidence to support his claims and does not even understand the workings of historical methodology or how to build and frame a working theory.

I'll come down off my soapbox now. ^_^

Daddy!!!!! You're back from Pe-ru!

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Until then, I’m out.

SC

PS - No rejoicing at the back there, I might just come back and haunt you all again.

farewell-cakes-christa-edmonds-pinterest.jpg

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

We've had plenty of potentially interesting ancient Egypt threads, but inevitably cladking tries to hijack every such thread for the sake of his pet "theory." There is no potential for useful debate because  cladking cannot offer realistic evidence to support his claims and does not even understand the workings of historical methodology or how to build and frame a working theory.

I'll come down off my soapbox now. ^_^

Then may I humbly suggest to the Mods that it might be time after 10+ years of the same reprehensible and boring actions by said person that he either be sent off to 'Duat' or restricted to a single 'speculative Egyptology thread' in the Archaeology and Paleontology sub-forum?

Is there some reason to allow him to continue?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro
2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

We've had plenty of potentially interesting ancient Egypt threads, but inevitably cladking tries to hijack every such thread for the sake of his pet "theory." There is no potential for useful debate because  cladking cannot offer realistic evidence to support his claims and does not even understand the workings of historical methodology or how to build and frame a working theory.

I'll come down off my soapbox now. ^_^

Yes, but . . . sometimes very interesting links or ideas are posted in refutation.  For example, Hanslune has a few posts above that I would like to read in detail.  The forum might not be as content rich if we all had our wits about us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hanslune
1 minute ago, Megaro said:

Yes, but . . . sometimes very interesting links or ideas are posted in refutation.  For example, Hanslune has a few posts above that I would like to read in detail.  The forum might not be as content rich if we all had our wits about us.  

Actually I posted those for Tom. It's very boring and a complete waste of time to deal with Cladking's troll like action, constant lying, refusal to answer questions, refusal to provide evidence and to deal with his repeating his endless repetitive statements this type of offensive behavior take away any joy in dealing with and interesting subject.

He's a dead weight to knowledge. If you like a goofy fellow making stupid comments to generate intelligent responses we can hire Harte to post random selections from Cladking's tens of thousands of posts.

Here a thread of 749 pages - bucket fulls of nonsense and senseless repetition. https://historum.com/threads/unlocking-the-final-mystery-of-the-great-pyramid.126373/

That marathon thread ended with this post by a Moderator

Quote

Enough of this.

cladking, from now on, you will confine your theory on construction of the pyramids to the Speculative History forum, and you will not bring it up in ANY other thread on this site. I trust that is completely, and utterly clear.

As and when you can show me your academic credentials, and when your theory has been published, peer reviewed and supported by practical field work, then you can discuss it elsewhere on this site, and not before.

Cladking is only here because he's running out of places he is welcomed or where anyone will speak with him.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
5 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

We've had plenty of potentially interesting ancient Egypt threads, but inevitably cladking tries to hijack every such thread for the sake of his pet "theory." There is no potential for useful debate because  cladking cannot offer realistic evidence to support his claims and does not even understand the workings of historical methodology or how to build and frame a working theory.

I'll come down off my soapbox now. ^_^

Hi Kmt_sesh

Saturday night I spent time working on a model for him and posted my findings and nope no response.<_< If this project is going to move forward I would like to see him chip in on material costs and really it's not much smokes, beer and bud and we can move ahead.

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Kmt_sesh

Saturday night I spent time working on a model for him and posted my findings and nope no response.<_< If this project is going to move forward I would like to see him chip in on material costs and really it's not much smokes, beer and bud and we can move ahead.

jmccr8

I can picture you and @Piney as the new Mythbusters.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I can picture you and @Piney as the new Mythbusters.

Hi Golden Duckl

Sounds good to me, and I am all out of likes so LIKE.:lol::tu:

jmccr8

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Then may I humbly suggest to the Mods that it might be time after 10+ years of the same reprehensible and boring actions by said person that he either be sent off to 'Duat' or restricted to a single 'speculative Egyptology thread' in the Archaeology and Paleontology sub-forum?

Is there some reason to allow him to continue?

That question was on University Challenge last week!  Perhaps you missed it?  I won't give you the correct answer yet - try to work it out from the choices below.

   a) His original thinking and out-of-the-box ideas fascinate us and have made valid contributions to a wide range of subjects

   b) He has a deep insight into a quite unique combination of topics, allowing him to make clear and concise statements with authority and gravity

   c) He is the living reincarnation of at least a dozen major historical characters including Khufu, Jesus, Angry Bob (lord of the tyrannosaurs) and Solomon; as such he has first-hand knowledge and wisdom to share with the world and we ought to treasure - in fact, worship - him

   d) We all need a good laugh now and then

   e) None of the above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
4 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Cladking is only here because he's running out of places he is welcomed or where anyone will speak with him.

surely "listen to him in rapt awe at his superior intellect and stunning insights"?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Then may I humbly suggest to the Mods that it might be time after 10+ years of the same reprehensible and boring actions by said person that he either be sent off to 'Duat' or restricted to a single 'speculative Egyptology thread' in the Archaeology and Paleontology sub-forum?

Is there some reason to allow him to continue?

I'd echo this sentiment. Even as I'm interested in the debate the repetition gets annoying. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Then may I humbly suggest to the Mods that it might be time after 10+ years of the same reprehensible and boring actions by said person that he either be sent off to 'Duat' or restricted to a single 'speculative Egyptology thread' in the Archaeology and Paleontology sub-forum?

Is there some reason to allow him to continue?

Typical entrenched mainstream Academic Cabal obfuscation. Eerily reminiscent of the behavior by the Hrdslcka regime at the Smithsonian. Or Meggars in regard to Amazonia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
15 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

 

 

1381668317_threewaysnottobuildapyramidcropped.jpg.7c18272000d8334afef35dd70e361714.jpg

 

 

So could anyone advocating the five-step core approach please tell me how the pyramid would be finished?

 

It was #2.  It was cladded from the bottom of each step up but they started at the top step.   Of course they did some sections of backing stones and cladding at lower levels even before the step pyramid was 100% complete in order to keep the maritime industry and the quarrying industry operating at full capacity.  There are many ways this can be seen from course thicknesses to banding and vertical lines in the pyramid but I believe one of the best is G2;

bjql.png

In order to build at the step tops required some special bracing.  The region wouldn't be completely stable until the step below was clad to this level and everything braced.  The last row of casing stone was simply a thin facade that supported the ends of the large stones above and each of these was about 24" high and were narrow and extended back only a couple feet (~500 lbs).  They were installed by a group called the "necklace stringers" who hung from the ben ben (king's crown) above.    Once they ran out of room to work on any given step top then they had to lift the last stones from below one stone at a time rather than massive sledfulls of stone that were used for the others.   Quite a bit of this is preserved in the real cultural context and the physical evidence.   

Oh, and  yes some of those stones at the top of G2 are modern bracing but nobody knows which were put in by Egyptologists and which are original.   This pyramid like all great pyramids has never been systematically studied by modern scientists.  They have been operated and studied by Egyptologists rather than engineers or scientists.  

 

I always appreciate Scott Creighton's insights but then I'm not allowed to  say much off topic.  Suffice to say that everyone hates losing arguments and some people don't want to be reminded they've lost an argument many times.   

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Oh.  And notice how all the stones at the top are tiny just like people here keep saying despite the lack of evidence.  They sure do look tiny when viewed from the bottom;

bjql.png

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

The stones at the top are smaller but there still well sized stones

 

Top of GP

dPkQEqs.jpg

Bottom of GP

45VSJUU.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, cladking said:

  Suffice to say that everyone hates losing arguments and some people don't want to be reminded they've lost an argument many times.   

Well please link to where you've 'won' an argument at UM about the pyramids...............we'll wait.

Also Cladking please remember that you're stating that you are right about something doesn't make it so.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Saru

It doesn't seem to me as though this topic is producing anything constructive at this point, there's far too much hostility being thrown around.

Closed.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.