Pyramid stones were transported over wet sand

[questionmark]

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

Wooot? tis one ain't no martian?

[029b10]

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.

To whose scrunity? Link A number of scientific research institutions are coming to this conclusion also. I think it pretty obvious myself but I also believe that all the water evaporates from concrete, not just some. Since after all, sedimentary rocks where formed as during the in early formation of the livable earth. Like us, the story has it that earth was not around in the beginning 14 billion years ago when all the known and observed universe expanded from a primeval atom. Do you know what the primeval atom said before the big bang Stand back electron, I don't know how big this thing is going to get. .....What did you think neutrons evolve?

After all aren't sedimentary rock formed by the particular elements that amassed upon earth's crust and solidified when the waters receded?

But if the possibility doesn't exist about the construction of the pyramids then it's pretty obvious you wouldn't believe anything on the three major pyramids and the three minor pyramids of Giza which some say is symbolic for the Gospel in 1 John 5:7-8.

Edited May 2, 2014 by 029b10

[ancient astronaut]

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

Yeah, and they cut the Diorite with bronze tools.

[seeder]

But if the possibility doesn't exist about the construction of the pyramids then it's pretty obvious you wouldn't believe anything on the three major pyramids and the three minor pyramids of Giza which some say is symbolic for the Gospel in 1 John 5:7-8.

There are 118 pyramids 'at least' in Egypt..

[seeder]

To whose scrunity? Link A number of scientific research institutions are coming to this conclusion also. I think it pretty obvious myself but I also believe that all the water evaporates from concrete, not just some. Since after all, sedimentary rocks where formed as during the in early formation of the livable earth. Like us, the story has it that earth was not around in the beginning 14 billion years ago when all the known and observed universe expanded from a primeval atom. Do you know what the primeval atom said before the big bang Stand back electron, I don't know how big this thing is going to get. .....What did you think neutrons evolve?

By the way your link focused on the Bosnian Pyramid(s)...which do not exist

[questionmark]

To whose scrunity? Link A number of scientific research institutions are coming to this conclusion also. I think it pretty obvious myself but I also believe that all the water evaporates from concrete, not just some. Since after all, sedimentary rocks where formed as during the in early formation of the livable earth. Like us, the story has it that earth was not around in the beginning 14 billion years ago when all the known and observed universe expanded from a primeval atom. Do you know what the primeval atom said before the big bang Stand back electron, I don't know how big this thing is going to get. .....What did you think neutrons evolve?

After all aren't sedimentary rock formed by the particular elements that amassed upon earth's crust and solidified when the waters receded?

But if the possibility doesn't exist about the construction of the pyramids then it's pretty obvious you wouldn't believe anything on the three major pyramids and the three minor pyramids of Giza which some say is symbolic for the Gospel in 1 John 5:7-8.

Right, and to save time they made an individual mold for each block?

[Oniomancer]

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.

As I recall, It's only a little over 300 yards from the quarry and quay to the qyramids pyramids, up a stone causeway and over the cleared top of the plateau. all they'd need to do was surface a path with sand. There'd be no depth to sink into.

Put enough rope between the pullers and the block and you've got plenty of room for levelers and waterers to work smoothing the path ahead of it. That's assuming they didn't just bear off pulling at an angle to either side of the path, much as it's unnecessary for a mule working a towpath ahead of a barge to know how to swim.

[scorpiosonic]

As I recall, It's only a little over 300 yards from the quarry and quay to the qyramids pyramids, up a stone causeway and over the cleared top of the plateau. all they'd need to do was surface a path with sand. There'd be no depth to sink into.

Put enough rope between the pullers and the block and you've got plenty of room for levelers and waterers to work smoothing the path ahead of it. That's assuming they didn't just bear off pulling at an angle to either side of the path, much as it's unnecessary for a mule working a towpath ahead of a barge to know how to swim.

Well said, I agree 100%.

A stone lined ramp makes alot of sense.....firm ground, and then only relatively small amounts of sand, (and probably clay) and water are needed. ]If the surface of the causeway, (ramp) was intentionally built to be slightly irregular, (as opposed to flat and smooth) this would reduce the amount of friction on the sled runners, or the sledge bottom.]

You can call it a causeway, road, pathway, etc. but it IS a ramp, (NOT a "ramp").

FACT: It's uphill all the way from the quarries to the Giza pyramids. ANY causeway, etc. there IS, by definition, a ramp.

There are some excellent relative articles on the Em Hotep website, inc a 3-part interview w/ Houdin, and another article "From Quarry To Capstone" also by Houdin.

Check out pics on this link: http://emhotep.net/2...reat-pyramid-3/

Yet again, scientifically supported evidence isn't good enough for CK.

Edited May 2, 2014 by scorpiosonic

[Xpeople]

Has this idea already been presented?

[+Hammerclaw]

They didn't use sleds. Too much weight would be concentrated on the runners. They built lanes and ramps of rammed earth and sand and lubricated them with water. The weight of the stone would have been spred even instead of concentrated in two narrow ruts.

[cormac mac airt]

They didn't use sleds. Too much weight would be concentrated on the runners. They built lanes and ramps of rammed earth and sand and lubricated them with water. The weight of the stone would have been spred even instead of concentrated in two narrow ruts.

They didn't? What would you call these then that statues, etc. are being moved on?

Egyptologists call them sledges/sleds.

cormac

[cladking]

Has this idea already been presented?

That sand is stiffer wet is a well known phenomenon.

Animal walking along the beach will stay close to the water so they don't sink in with each step.

[Frank Merton]

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.

I can see you disapprove of crackpot theories.

[cladking]

As I recall, It's only a little over 300 yards from the quarry and quay to the qyramids pyramids, up a stone causeway and over the cleared top of the plateau. all they'd need to do was surface a path with sand. There'd be no depth to sink into.

If the sand isn't deep enough to support the load it is likely to be moved from its

underlying surface by the friction of the load being pulled over it.

I've never heard of using sand either wet or dry to reduce friction. Sand is often

used to increase friction. A handful of sand will often get equipment moving when

it's slipping.

Put enough rope between the pullers and the block and you've got plenty of room for levelers and waterers to work smoothing the path ahead of it. That's assuming they didn't just bear off pulling at an angle to either side of the path, much as it's unnecessary for a mule working a towpath ahead of a barge to know how to swim.

Any pulling to the side is wasted effort. It's simply work converted to heat

where the feet grip the surface. Only the forward vector actually counts toward

moving the object. If pull is being exerted from both sides of the route then it

will tend to rotate the sled and increase the tendency to dig in. If the force is

applied from a point in the middle of the sled the tendency is only slightly reduced

since uneven force will result in the rope not being pointed directly ahead.

I seriously doubt the conditions at Giza would be conducive to this technique

and even if it were it would be different at other sites. Still of what real value is

the ability to drag stones over sand if you still have to build massive ramps?

Hauling vast amounts of water for the priviledge of dragging stones up ramps

just doesn't seem much of a gift. Every indication is the stones came from the

quarry on site and the casing and exotic stones came from the so called valley

temple. Why drag any stones on sand?

I'd truly like to see a practical demonstration of this technique. Sand is hard

when it's wet but I'm not so sure it would support a sled. I'm confident it was

of no practical value. It may well have been used specific applications where

there was no other infrastructure near a water source.

[cormac mac airt]

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.

So are Homo sapiens sapiens (Us). So your point is?

cormac

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

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.

You were doing so well, until that last bit !

[scorpiosonic]

Why drag any stones on sand?

Because when they added water to the sand, it was easier to drag, (the sled).

(Maybe you should read the link in the OP.)

[029b10]

Right, and to save time they made an individual mold for each block?

On the other hand, why cut them different sizes?

Maybe the were poured in different sizes because one was poured into a form built using the standard cubit and the next built his form using the royal cubit, your know those hieroglyphics are hard enough to read when building an ark, much less a pyramid.

But there must have been a cadre of very seasoned laborers who really knew how to cut stone so fine that you could join them without getting a razor blade in between. Source Nova

When you remove the form from concrete you get a real smooth finish, and if you pour up another block next to the prior block, you can't get a razor blade between them either.

I take it that the underlying principle expressed by physicist's in the OP topic clearly negates the possible re-solidification of the limestone aggregate.

Of course, seems like if the were quarried then there ought to be some sort of hole where they where quarried from wouldn't one think?

So in light of the fact that there are some 2 million of these quarried stones used in the largest pyramid structre on the right, then it would have taken a couple hundred stones a day to be quarried and moved into place in order to build it within the 30 years timeframe estimated by the experts that they represent that it took to build it. Then could you present the evidence you have for these quarries from which they originated from?

Then again, if quarried the stones then they must be some physical evidence of that quarry, which begs the question about the load bearing ability of quarried limestone to withstand the tremendous weight of the structure since naturally formed sedimentary rocks have propensity to crumble under the pressure.

Then there is the other problem, they all have a flaw which is indicative to the fact that the flaw in construction is reflected in the same symmetrical malformation in the symmetconstruction of the 3 larger structures as to leave little doubt to that all three where built at the same time since they all have the same error. That is unless the argument that there is no flaw in the construction.

see 2 Kings 20:11

Edited May 3, 2014 by 029b10

[scorpiosonic]

It's been well-documented that the limestone blocks used in the Giza pyramid's const. came from the quarries nearby.

(1,000s of Egyptologists have studied these pyramids, and I'm sure most of them can easily differentiate between natural stone blocks, and poured blocks.)

Each block was cut out, then hauled up ramps on sledges directly from these quarries to the pyramids.

What construction flaw is that?

[seeder]

But there must have been a cadre of very seasoned laborers who really knew how to cut stone so fine that you could join them without getting a razor blade in between. Source Nova

I think you'll find the stones used in the construction are NOT joined so tight and precise

[questionmark]

It's been well-documented that the limestone blocks used in the Giza pyramid's const. came from the quarries nearby.

(1,000s of Egyptologists have studied these pyramids, and I'm sure most of them can easily differentiate between natural stone blocks, and poured blocks.)

Each block was cut out, then hauled up ramps on sledges directly from these quarries to the pyramids.

What construction flaw is that?

1000 Egyptologists and about as many geologists, who have slightly more credence in this subject matter... in fact the quarry for each pyramid is within strolling distance.

[seeder]

Another thing, if the AE had learned to use a pourable concrete...why the hell didnt they use it as a mortar too?

[029b10]

By the way your link focused on the Bosnian Pyramid(s)...which do not exist

I believe if one reads the article it avers to the book:

The Pyramids: an Enigma Solved, Davidovits presents the current knowledge of pyramid construction that is supported by scientific, historical, and linguistic studies which prove that the Egyptian pyramids were constructed using agglomerated stone (limestone cast like concrete).

[029b10]

1000 Egyptologists and about as many geologists, who have slightly more credence in this subject matter... in fact the quarry for each pyramid is within strolling distance.

then give a distance for a perimeter in which they stones were quarried from the site, better yet there ought to be significant pits considering the volume of stone that was used.

[scorpiosonic]

Another thing, if the AE had learned to use a pourable concrete...why the hell didnt they use it as a mortar too?

Because the poured blocks fit so tightly it wasn't needed.

(Just kidding....haha.)