Banksy Boy Posted May 1, 2012 #126 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) The very same show that this thread takes its name from showed Christopher Dunn sawing a perfectly round hole all the way through a piece of granite with a copper tube saw and some sand. Funny how the show personnel can believe this, but you can't. Regarding getting flat surfaces, it has been found that if you burn a fire on top of some granite, the heat makes the surface layer very much easier to work. Likely this was the method used. Harte Chris Dunn also noted that the finish within the bore hole he produced was different to their bore hole finishes....clearly not the same. Edited May 1, 2012 by Banksy Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Boy Posted May 1, 2012 #127 Share Posted May 1, 2012 In fact, here we have an 80 year old dude hand forming s piece of granite: You forgot to mention he's using a 2lb club hammer and Tungsten Carbide tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted May 1, 2012 #128 Share Posted May 1, 2012 You forgot to mention he's using a 2lb club hammer and Tungsten Carbide tools. Even if he used a wooden mallet and a bronze chisel the only difference would be that the tool would needed to be sharpened more frequently. You don't split the hard parts of granite, you crack it along the weak components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakeview rud Posted May 1, 2012 #129 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Just a quick add-on to Harte's comment about using the rotation of the stars to find true North. You can use the exact same method ANY day of the year using sunrise and sunset to establish true North. Simply find a nice flat and large area (Giza plateau??) and mark out a spot with a stake. From that location mark the sunrise point. Likewise mark the sunset point. You can now find East if you have a known length (of rope) by marking the same known length in each direction from the stake. Comnnect those two points and you have East/West. Also you can find true North/South by doing the same thing but then once you have marked off a distance in each direction, scribe an arc of slightly longer than your original distance from each point; where the arcs cross will give you a point which you then connect up with your starting stake and it will be N/S. Likely the Egyptians were more into the Sun than stars so kmt sesh's suggestion of highly valuing the direction East makes sense. Likely the AE's repeated the example a number of times to double check their results and refine the answer but this method doesn't rely on any stars and doesn't take any special skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted May 1, 2012 #130 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Wrong. I read (and I will search for that article) where some Egyptologist claim that so called (if you want-because everyone called it that way) Basalt road have not had surface working on it. Meaning it is what it is. I'd wager the person to whom you're referring is not really an Egyptologist but likes to style himself that way, or he is an exceedingly poorly informed Egyptologist. It's also possible you're not remembering the details quite right. That's not a slam in your direction—I've done the same thing. But, no, of course the basalt stones out front of the pyramid are not a road. Why on earth would they have built a road right in front of the pyramid? Here's a close-up photo of the basalt paving stones: Note the many small and irregularly cut sections of which they're composed. Moreover, ample archaeology of the site has recovered not only fragments of the temple and its relief carvings, but the general outline and layout of the temple (including the locations of columns). See this image. You can see the location and positioning of the basalt paving stones within the courtyard in the illustration. Second, why is hard to understand that they were able to produce melting points for Basalt and Granite.We humans in the end during iron age created even higher temperatures. Iron melting point is 1500 C. It's not a matter of wishing or believing, it's a matter of evidence. Anything outside the bounds of evidence is speculation or imagination, but not archaeological or historical reality. There is no evidence the Egyptians could do this. If you feel I am incorrect, please provide me the reference or citation from the body of professional literature so I can read the research for myself. Otherwise, all you're offering is personal opinion or assumption. All Im saying it is possobility. Same as Khufu graffiti was worker name. ... Here is something on which we can agree. Some of the graffiti in the relieving chambers does in fact record the names of a couple of individual work gangs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Boy Posted May 1, 2012 #131 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Even if he used a wooden mallet and a bronze chisel the only difference would be that the tool would needed to be sharpened more frequently. You don't split the hard parts of granite, you crack it along the weak components. Ok then, the 'Bronze chiseling wooden mallet granite bashing challenge' has now been set. Let the games begin. :clap: Please post up your efforts on Youtube. Edited May 1, 2012 by Banksy Boy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted May 1, 2012 Author #132 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Why are walls and chambers at Giza blank? Is it true that we dont have solid evidence when Khufu lived? In such giant project gypsim mortar was used in large scale. To make mortar you need fire. From where did they get this big amount of wood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 1, 2012 #133 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I understood his figure to mean that the African plate has moved 85 m in 4500 years. If this movement has been in a straight line, then you are correct. However, if the movement has curved or been irregular in any other way, even very slightly, it could have twisted the angle of orientation of the pyramids. You may be misunderstanding. If one were one to be utilizing a visual alignment with Polaris, one would be aligning with an object 434 light years from earth. One light year is ~ 5.879 x 1012 miles. Picture a highly acute triangle with the apex being Polaris and the two basal corners being 281.25 ft (85.76 m) apart. Over this span of distance [434 x (5.879 x 1012)], the change in sub-minute of arc would be infinitesimal. Also keep in mind that Polaris is only within ~ 1o of true north. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted May 1, 2012 Author #134 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Note the many small and irregularly cut sections of which they're composed. Hmm...thanks Kmt. Im not questioned purpose of the floor. Sure its good to understand whole context but I was thinking could it be that it was melted...It seems like it is. Maybe time created those cuts...if we talking about same cuts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted May 1, 2012 Author #135 Share Posted May 1, 2012 From where did they get this big amount of wood? Unless ...time it was built desert was not desert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted May 1, 2012 Author #136 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Also I was under impression that Egyptians were highly religious. Then I found out about their Ibiza...girls gone wild parties... 1470 B.C., "festival of drunkenness," which celebrated nothing less than the salvation of humanity. Archaeologists say they have found evidence amid the ruins of a temple in Luxor that the annual rite featured sex, drugs and the ancient equivalent of rock 'n' roll. http://www.msnbc.msn...s/#.T6BX-KvUNrA No matter if they connected those parties to Sekhmet myth or others gods seems to me that they were not so religious. If they were not so religious why would they built those pyramids in the first place... If Khufu was so important to them Im sure they would leave more traces of him... Something is wrong about motivation for building Khufu pyramid,imho. Edited May 1, 2012 by Melo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted May 1, 2012 Author #137 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Except, it's not a possibility. It is a sign of ignorance that you think that if you melt granite then cool it, the result will be granite again. It won't. Melted stone like granite becomes basalt when allowed to cool at the Earth's surface. So, if they melted any of their granite, they couldn't have used it for any granite construction - it would have been basalt. But we see granite in these structures. I hope you come up with something at least a little less ridiculous for your next escapade. Can you give more info or link please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 1, 2012 #138 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Can you give more info or link please. Here is a rather simplistic but relatively accurate reference that includes diagrams that may be of use. Note: The igneous rock granite is formed by the slow cooling of magma in the crust or perhaps inside a volcano after it stops erupting and the top becomes plugged. It is called an intrusive rock because it is formed 'inside' the crust and not on the crust surface. The crystals are relatively large due to slow cooling and 'speckled' as different minerals of different colours crystallise out within the rock structure. Granite tends to be lighter in colour than basalt (see 4(d) below). Granite type rocks are sometimes called course-grained rocks because of the mixture of interlocking larger crystals. (Emphasis added) Basalt is described as an extrusive rock because it 'extrudes' out into air or water to cool and form the solidified rock. It is formed by the fast cooling of magma and the crystals are relatively small because of the fast cooling. It consists of interlocked microscopic crystals which are darker in appearance compared to granite. This situation is found when lava/magma cools rapidly when flowing out into air or water. Basalt rocks are sometimes called fine-grained rocks because of the mixture of interlocking tiny crystals. The relative size of the crystalline structures in granite also varies somewhat, with the larger crystalline sizes being reflective of the slowest cooling rates. There are numerous technical papers available. http://www.docbrown....hangesANS04.htm Edit: Addition Edited May 1, 2012 by Swede 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 1, 2012 #139 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Not really. The African plate is slowly moving northwest at a rate of ~ .75" (~2 cm)/year. In the last 4500 years it would have moved ~ 281.25' (85.73 m). A basically irrelevant figure. The repeatedly proferred speculations in regards to celestial alignment having been utilized in the Giza constructions may have a base-line conceptual flaw. As kmt_sesh and others have already suggested, a simple sun-stick (shadow stick) is all that is required. While seasonality and time of day can somewhat alter the precision of this "instrument", the accuracy of such on the solstices is remarkably accurate. Repeated readings would contribute to the degree of accuracy. . To correct an error on my part: The highest precision of a sun-stick occurs at the equinoxes, not the solstices. Apologies for any confusion. It had been a long day. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flibbertigibbet Posted May 1, 2012 #140 Share Posted May 1, 2012 You may be misunderstanding. If one were one to be utilizing a visual alignment with Polaris, one would be aligning with an object 434 light years from earth. One light year is ~ 5.879 x 1012 miles. Picture a highly acute triangle with the apex being Polaris and the two basal corners being 281.25 ft (85.76 m) apart. Over this span of distance [434 x (5.879 x 1012)], the change in sub-minute of arc would be infinitesimal. Also keep in mind that Polaris is only within ~ 1o of true north. . No I think it's you who is misunderstanding. The parallax of stars, or even the sun, is irrelevant. If the plate has shifted it may have twisted the angle that the pyramids were originally aligned to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted May 1, 2012 #141 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Why are walls and chambers at Giza blank? Is it true that we dont have solid evidence when Khufu lived? In such giant project gypsim mortar was used in large scale. To make mortar you need fire. From where did they get this big amount of wood? The absence of hieroglyphs in the Dynasty 3 and 4 pyramids has been explained in careful detail many, many, many times over the years at UM, by a number of different posters (myself included). Surely you've come across at least one of these posts in the past. If you really want, I will explain it again, but only at your invitation. I don't want to bog down the discussion on my own initiative, seeing as this is your thread. Khufu is well evidenced, including at the Great Pyramid complex. His mortuary temple and probably the valley temple were heavily decorated with fine relief carvings, as was probably at least a portion of the causeway. His name is referenced in the adjacent tombs of court officials and family members, especially in the East Cemetery. Moreover, Khufu's name is inscribed elsewhere in the Nile Valley and beyond, including at quarry sites. Also, his name appears on official annals like the Palermo Stone, fixing him in time and place. And always important to remember is that graffiti in the relieving chambers, which mentions Khufu by several instances of his royal titulary. When Khufu lived is no mystery. As for the mortar and the wood required to produce it, yes, a great deal of it would've been needed. Most Egyptologists believe the area of Giza was already desert by the time of Dynasty 4, although I've come across instances in which some disagree and believe some savannah was still present. In either case Egypt had ample supplies of timber through Dynasty 4, especially at nearly all points along the Nile. The trees would not have been large, but there would've been plenty of them. Mark Lehner has argued that by the end of Dynasty 4 the area of Giza might have been stripped of timber supplies, so the Egyptians may have "deforested" themselves. Also, a king had no qualms about destroying tombs that stood on or near the spot where he established his own tomb, so even those would've offered quite a nice supply of timber (many mastabas in that early period were mud brick with wood framing inside the walls, so the average mastaba might have a lot of wood inside it). Also I was under impression that Egyptians were highly religious. Then I found out about their Ibiza...girls gone wild parties... 1470 B.C., "festival of drunkenness," which celebrated nothing less than the salvation of humanity. Archaeologists say they have found evidence amid the ruins of a temple in Luxor that the annual rite featured sex, drugs and the ancient equivalent of rock 'n' roll. http://www.msnbc.msn...s/#.T6BX-KvUNrA No matter if they connected those parties to Sekhmet myth or others gods seems to me that they were not so religious. If they were not so religious why would they built those pyramids in the first place... If Khufu was so important to them Im sure they would leave more traces of him... Something is wrong about motivation for building Khufu pyramid,imho. Drunkenness should not be taken to mean a lack of piety. That might be a reflection of modern Judeo-Christianity but is not relevant to many ancient cultures. Altered states allowed one to become closer to the gods, so imbibing in excessive amounts of alcohol was perfectly acceptable. What you're quoting is a festival that was held a thousand years after Khufu's time, so I don't know how much relevance this may have to the era of the Great Pyramid, but many of these festivals were heavy on the cult of the goddess Hathor: she was the deity of love, music, and sensuality, so engaging in these acts was a form of piety in and of itself. And of course it's always a good thing to let the people party to their content. Keep them happy, especially when large numbers of them are tasked with building royal monuments. It may not always seem that way in tomb and temple depictions but the Egyptians were a very festive people, and they took advantage of opportunities for feasting and drinking. And sex. Many of these ancient peoples did not suffer from the sort of prudishness that governs our modern sex lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 1, 2012 #142 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Plus surface stone which is realy mystery how they fit perfectly on all side on that giant project? And what is the ramp that can take 60 tones blocks? Or even 300 tones blocks if is it true that some of surface blocks were that weight. So, I estimate that there were even bigger number. That dont explain how did they done it. Proces must be very difficult, precise. Blocks were carefully chosen. Plenty evidence for that. They didnt just do it like lego cubes. As someone already said, the blocks are FAR from uniform, and fit far from perfectly. In areas where the interior of the pyramid, in past the outer blocks, it has been seen that the blocks are very irregularly shaped and probably were just thrown into position with heaps of mortor. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2292130/posts Far far from uniform, precise, or cleanly stacked. This was a rush, rush, rush job, with the outer blocks done much more nicely to hold the interior in, and to better support the cladding stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 1, 2012 #143 Share Posted May 1, 2012 No I think it's you who is misunderstanding. The parallax of stars, or even the sun, is irrelevant. If the plate has shifted it may have twisted the angle that the pyramids were originally aligned to. You would not appear to be grasping the rate/degree of plate movement. The African plate is slowly moving in a northwesterly direction. As previously noted, the total linear movement would be ~ 281 ft. The sub-minute degree of arc alteration would, again, be infinitesimal. You would appear to be opining that the plate has "twisted" in a radical manner over the course of the relevant time period. Based upon current understandings, this position would not be supportable. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flibbertigibbet Posted May 1, 2012 #144 Share Posted May 1, 2012 You would not appear to be grasping the rate/degree of plate movement. The African plate is slowly moving in a northwesterly direction. As previously noted, the total linear movement would be ~ 281 ft. The sub-minute degree of arc alteration would, again, be infinitesimal. You would appear to be opining that the plate has "twisted" in a radical manner over the course of the relevant time period. Based upon current understandings, this position would not be supportable. . The plate has moved 85 m. If that movement deviated even slightly from a dead straight line, it would have the effect of twisting the angle of orientation of anything built on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 1, 2012 #145 Share Posted May 1, 2012 The plate has moved 85 m. If that movement deviated even slightly from a dead straight line, it would have the effect of twisting the angle of orientation of anything built on it. While this observation is technically correct, we are once again back to the degree of alteration to the alignment. Based upon your mathematical calculations, and taking into account the proposed alignment-source distance, the rate and directional arc of the plate movement, and the known deviance in the alignment of the Giza constructions, what would you propose to be the specific extent of alignment alteration? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flibbertigibbet Posted May 1, 2012 #146 Share Posted May 1, 2012 While this observation is technically correct, we are once again back to the degree of alteration to the alignment. Based upon your mathematical calculations, and taking into account the proposed alignment-source distance, the rate and directional arc of the plate movement, and the known deviance in the alignment of the Giza constructions, what would you propose to be the specific extent of alignment alteration? . I haven't made any calculations, since it was your data I was using to start with. You said 85 m, but the alignmernt-source distance, as you put it, is irrelevant if this 85 m has deviated from dead straight by any measurable amount at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 2, 2012 #147 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I haven't made any calculations, since it was your data I was using to start with. You said 85 m, but the alignmernt-source distance, as you put it, is irrelevant if this 85 m has deviated from dead straight by any measurable amount at all. The above bolded is not an accurate interpretation of the previous information. One may wish to be cautious of such. Kindly keep in mind the utilization of the term infinitesimal. Please provide sound astronomical/geological/mathematical data that would support your position. Such data can then be addressed. As it would appear that you are currently in school, you may wish to consult instructors in the astronomy, geology, and mathematical departments. Present them with your speculations. You may find their cumulative responses to be quite enlightening. Please return with your data. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flibbertigibbet Posted May 2, 2012 #148 Share Posted May 2, 2012 The above bolded is not an accurate interpretation of the previous information. One may wish to be cautious of such. Kindly keep in mind the utilization of the term infinitesimal. Please provide sound astronomical/geological/mathematical data that would support your position. Such data can then be addressed. As it would appear that you are currently in school, you may wish to consult instructors in the astronomy, geology, and mathematical departments. Present them with your speculations. You may find their cumulative responses to be quite enlightening. Please return with your data. . Ok lets take an extreme example because I don't think you get it yet, and I'm not sure how I can explain it any better to make you understand. You said 85 m, right? What if that 85 m movement had been, instead of a straight line, but curved like part of the circumferance of a circle? This would twist the alignment of the pyramid from whatever it had been aligned with before, e.g. true north, would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted May 2, 2012 #149 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Ok lets take an extreme example because I don't think you get it yet, and I'm not sure how I can explain it any better to make you understand. You said 85 m, right? What if that 85 m movement had been, instead of a straight line, but curved like part of the circumferance of a circle? This would twist the alignment of the pyramid from whatever it had been aligned with before, e.g. true north, would it not? While I agree there might be a misunderstanding between Swede and yourself in discussing a "directional" versus a "rotational" movement of tectonic plates I don't think available evidence would support your idea. Mainly since the African (Nubian) plate shows evidence of moving per a fixed Antarctic, Eurasian, Lwandle, North American, South American and Somalian plates by as much as 0.152; 0.131; 0.022; 0.238; 0.295 and 0.076 degrees per million years respectively. On a scale of as little as 4500 years this movement would be insignificant, to say the least. http://gps.caltech.e...tock/Morvel.pdf Source name: Geologically current plate motions Geophys. J. Int. (2010) 181, 1–80 Edit to add: It is also known that the African (Nubian) plate is rotating in a counter-clockwise direction which would further throw a monkey-wrench into your idea. cormac Edited May 2, 2012 by cormac mac airt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalcase Posted May 2, 2012 #150 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Melo, on numerous occasions now, people have added sound information (meaning, CORRECT). I'm not following your logic of disagreement. Not that I don't mind the show! While mystifying, The Giza pyramids have been well documented, especially in the last 20 years. This means, all methods of building (for the most part). While some methods are still theoretical, it doesn't mean it is open for wild assumptions and opinions. I respect most of your threads Melo. I'm rather confused with this disagreement thing though! Especially, concerning our well respected member KMT! My Chi-town homie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now