None So Blind ...

[seeder]

And which pyramid was it that allowed thm to learn how to build great pyramids?

This is the point everyone chooses to ignore. The very first pyramid was a great pyramid. There was no learning curve.

Oh no?

4,600-Year-Old ‘Provincial’ Pyramid Discovered In Egypt, Older Than Great Pyramid Of Giza

Choice quotes:

"The similarities from one pyramid to the other are really amazing, and there is definitely a common plan," Gregory Marouard, a research associate at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute who led the work at the Edfu pyramid, said at a recent meeting of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. "The construction itself reflects a certain care and a real expertise in the mastery of stone construction, especially for the adjustment of the most important blocks.”

The pyramid appeared to have been abandoned shortly after its construction, around the time Khufu, the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh who ruled Egypt during the 26th century B.C., began construction on the Great Pyramid. Archaeologists presented the results of their excavation at the symposium, which was held in Toronto.

http://www.ibtimes.c...id-giza-1553053

There are I believe (from memory) well over a hundred pyramids in Egypt, and excavations are still going on. We do not know all there is to know YET about AE

And

No One Knows Why Ancient Egyptians Built This 4,600-Year-Old Pyramid

The new pyramid joins the list of other mysterious step pyramids built before the Great Pyramid at Giza

http://www.smithsoni...QlEdP56xqA2o.99

.

.

Edited July 14, 2014 by seeder

[seeder]

You know, the pyramid design is, quite literally, the ONLY design you can have for a huge monument made of non cemented blocks, in ancient times. They couldn't build spheres, and if you tried to make a huge impressive cube instead, there would be far too much weight on each lower set of stones that they would likely crack and become unstable

Plus cubes or rectangles are not very good looking.

Now even a child learns, from their own experiences, that when you stack blocks on top of one another in a line and try to build high, the blocks wobble and fall easily, so for the child to overcome this, and create MORE stability, the child naturally builds like this

The Pyramid shape is quite logically, the only shape you could build so high

[freetoroam]

You know, the pyramid design is, quite literally, the ONLY design you can have for a huge monument made of non cemented blocks, in ancient times. They couldn't build spheres, and if you tried to make a huge impressive cube instead, there would be far too much weight on each lower set of stones that they would likely crack and become unstable

Plus cubes or rectangles are not very good looking.

Now even a child learns, from their own experiences, that when you stack blocks on top of one another in a line and try to build high, the blocks wobble and fall easily, so for the child to overcome this, and create MORE stability, the child naturally builds like this

The Pyramid shape is quite logically, the only shape you could build so high

Also when man reached the building high stage, the first thing they would most likely have based their technique on would have been something high which man knew did not fall over, say..........a mountain:

What better example to use than this, and man having a brain, just perfected it more:

[cladking]

Any machine that functions is a product of examination, hypothesis, test and evaluation = the scientific method. Each and every one operates on a proven scientific principle.

I can agree that machines are the result of science but obviously all machines aren't

the result of modern science. Birds know nothing of "proven scientific principle" when

they make a lever for a specific task.

Human technology is a sort of magic trick derived almost more from experiment than

from knowledge or from "science". A counterweight keeps a crane from tipping over

easily but the designer who put the counterweight on it has little more understanding

of how weight or gravity works than the birds has of levers.

People don't see because of perspective and our perspective is from infinite distance.

It's a wonder we can see at all.

But you do need bricks and mortar as well. I've never made a sandwich with just science, but science is there. In the chemical interplay between acids and bases. In the application of salt to enhance certain flavour reactions that I find appealing.

Does a bee understand the chemistry of honey?

"Science" is irrelevant except to the way we now gain new knowledge. Well... ...up

until the 1920's anyway.

Science and Mathematics are everywhere and a part of everything we do, you can deny it until you're blue in the face but they're systems of knowing and understanding and applying. Without which, the pyramids are just rocks, my sandwich is a piece of wheat, two somethings grown in a garden an a bit of a pig and we're not having this conversation.

You are standing too far away. The sun needs neither science nor math to put on

a spectacular "sun becoming hidden by the horizon" which we call a "sunset". The

sky didn't read in a first grade primer that it was blue due to refraction. Now people

don't even seem to notice it's not always blue. I saw it a stunningly bright irridescent

orange once because mother nature doesn't read science books and is not beholden

to any system of math.

And you missed my point in the VERY FIRST LINE of the quoted post.

"They're AS MUCH a part". As much. Equally. Not detracting from or replacing. PART OF.

Bricks, Mortar and Maths. Without all three, you've a mess, not a house.

There's nothing wrong with your perspective. It's not my contention there's something

wrong with your perspective. It's my contention that your perspective and expectations

define whaty you see. You are blind to things that can be seen only from the inside and

things that don't match your beliefs. Modern language and the perspective that defines

it turns things into what they are not sometimes just as all other perspectives can do.

[cladking]

Perhaps you might. Does this mean you agree with JeanBaptisteChatelaine's statement (".. as long as they don't refer to every artefact they don't recognise as "most likely for use in a religious ceremony") that such claims are made about "every artefact"? {my emphasis}

Of course not literally every artefact. They did use combs and the like.

That's true, but presumably only an issue when a level on a pyramid is close to being filled, and there's not much room around the perimeter.

You are not addressing the important point; delivery rate. I grant that they could

easily keep any number of teams going setting stones on the pyramid top. The ques-

tion that is always avoided or dismissed is "how did these stones get to the top fast

enough to keep them working?".

I obviously didn't make myself clear. The pyramids (collectively) fit neatly into a larger sequence of increasing sophistication. In the centuries prior to the construction of the pyramids there is no clear evidence of structures as sophisticated as them. Then, a thousand or so years later you have the more sophisticated Temples of Karnak. Then, a thousand or so years after that you have the Parthenon in Athens. Then, a thousand or so years after that you have Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Then, several hundred years after that you have the cathedrals of Western Europe.

To me there's a steady increase in sophistication over time, and the pyramids fit into that sequence quite well.

I think I understood this point well enough and even agree with it in general.

What I'm saying is that there was no precedent for lifting such massive weight in a given

location. How did they know when they buuilt the first great pyramid that their lifting mech

anism would work unless they used science or trial and error? This is no minor point.

[cladking]

Oh no?

http://www.smithsoni...QlEdP56xqA2o.99

No! This doesn't cut it. It's even less than a pipsqueek pyramid. Even compared to the tiny

little diminuative inconsequential pyramids built after the great pyramids, this one is small.

There was no precedent for the first great pyramid and this is not consistent with trial and

error. The paradigm must be wrong.

[seeder]

No! This doesn't cut it. It's even less than a pipsqueek pyramid. Even compared to the tiny

little diminuative inconsequential pyramids built after the great pyramids, this one is small.

There was no precedent for the first great pyramid and this is not consistent with trial and

error. The paradigm must be wrong.

But its a pyramid nonetheless. And you said "The very first pyramid was a great pyramid. There was no learning curve"

So, that makes you wrong doesn't it?

[cladking]

But its a pyramid nonetheless. And you said "The very first pyramid was a great pyramid. There was no learning curve"

So, that makes you wrong doesn't it?

No. Of course not.

Little cavebabies no doubt made pyramids out of blocks given to them by their cavemommies

and cavedaddies. These have nothing more to do with great pyramids than a field of sugar beets

has to to with a jar of honey.

There were numerous provincial "pyramids" and these were all less than tiny.

[cormac mac airt]

Your contention appears to be that since we don't know the exact count of stones in

the pyramid then it's not legitimate to even study how it was built. If you can't calculate

a delivery rate then maybe swallows carried the stones up.

To the first question: No, that's not my contention. Which means you really do have a comprehension problem. I've already stated that the original estimate, per Petrie, was actually an over-estimate of any actual quantity since it completely ignored any and every void or geological formation, whether natural or man-made, as well as assumed that every block including granite ones averaged the same size and weight and was therefore an estimate of a 100% solid structure. Which means that anyone claiming to know that there were 2.3 million blocks (or more) and the delivery rate thereof is automatically and significantly (and embarassingly IMO) wrong from the start. If you'd actually read through Petrie's text you would have realized this for yourself, but instead you apparently prefer pretending to know more than Petrie, who never claimed it was anything more than an estimate (and within his own text makes it apparent that it wasn't a very good one either).

To your second statement:

If you want to play with numbers at least show enough sense to follow the specific details that Petrie gives instead of latching onto a rather well known over-estimate and pretending that it has any basis in reality, it doesn't.

cormac

Edited July 15, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[Emma_Acid]

I have a problem with some “scholars” irrespective of which direction their field of interest/expertise lies.

Another month, another "I don't like established science because it doesn't agree with what I wish was true" rant. Nothing new.

[Bendy Demon]

We don't use science, math, or magic to build a skyscraper because it requires cranes, electricity,

and steel.

What? Am I reading this correctly? Just how do you think electricity, cranes and the manufacture of steel was manufactured?

All that you mentioned was needed to even utilize those things PLUS math is needed just to make the blueprint layout. You know, square footage, lengths of beams and all that. That requires math and science AND logic. None of that come from the thin air.

Sorry for interjecting, I just found this statement to be rather odd.

[seeder]

There were numerous provincial "pyramids" and these were all less than tiny.

I would not exactly call 43ft high tiny in itself. Only in comparison to the GP

quote from my link:

According to Live Science, the recently discovered pyramid’s base measures 60 by 61 feet and it once stood as high as 43 feet tall. Weathering and pillaging have greatly degraded the 4,600-year-old pyramid, which now measures just 16 feet from its base to its tip. The Edfu pyramid predates the Great Pyramid at Giza by at least a few decades.

and

"The similarities from one pyramid to the other are really amazing, and there is definitely a common plan," Gregory Marouard, a research associate at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute.

The construction itself reflects a certain care and a real expertise in the mastery of stone construction, especially for the adjustment of the most important blocks

So, we have a number of smaller mids built prior to the big ones, and as said above,...there was definitely a common plan. So today we have (some) buildings built to scale, like models, so the architects/buyers can visualise in 3d what they have created

Now, it wouldn't stretch my imagination at all, to think that the AE did something similar. You could perhaps build a smaller one first to prove the concept, and also thus be able to calculate, perhaps roughly, the amount of labour and resources etc...which makes a shedload more sense than just 'deciding' to build the GP with no plans and no idea of the amount of stone needed. The AE were smart!

Again from my link:

"Provincial pyramids, including the one uncovered at Edfu, had no internal chambers and were not meant for burials. Archaeologists continue to debate the purpose of these pyramids"

So far then, there is no established purpose for these smaller mids, but if I were tasked with building the GP, I think making smaller ones first, makes a lot of sense

.

Edited July 15, 2014 by seeder

[Harte]

If you want to play with numbers at least show enough sense to follow the specific details that Petrie gives instead of latching onto a rather well known over-estimate and pretending that it has any basis in reality, it doesn't.

cormac

I think it would be a mistake to use any of what Petrie said, given the ultrasound survey mentioned in the quote I posted here.

Seems there are a lot more voids in the GP than we can easily observe.

Harte

[cladking]

What? Am I reading this correctly? Just how do you think electricity, cranes and the manufacture of steel was manufactured?

All that you mentioned was needed to even utilize those things PLUS math is needed just to make the blueprint layout. You know, square footage, lengths of beams and all that. That requires math and science AND logic. None of that come from the thin air.

Sorry for interjecting, I just found this statement to be rather odd.

It is hubris born of superstition and confusion that makes people believe that

the world and man's technology are fueled by science, math, logic, or knowledge.

This same hubris blinds us to the realities of our existence and possibilities for

progress. We look out over our dominion and we see what we already know and

imagine this knowledge is complete never seeing the vast swaths and near total-

ity of our ignorance.

Man didn't invent electricity or iron.

Over the course of many generations a few individuals observed means of improv-

ing or perfecting processes. Nobody really knows what's going on inside an iron

smelting furnace but improvements have been made for thousands of years based

on observation. We see things that work better and adopt them. Man didn't wake

up one morning and announce he was going to invent electricity. It was merely ob-

served that a coil spinning in a magnetic field induced a current. That this exists is

not the doing of man and if it didn't exist we'd merely have a different explanation for

what did. We don't understand the the bonds that hold the steel together just as we

don't understand the forces which repel the electricity nor the forces that allow the

counterweight on the crane to operate. We name the things we "understand" but we

have no names for all those things we don't know like the cause of the force that at-

tracts a counterweight. When we look at the crane we don't see our near total ignor-

ance but rather our voluminous knowledge (not me, I'm only ignorant).

Math is simply quantified logic that can be applied to the real world. Science is sim-

ply a metaphysical process that allows us to begin to understand the real world.

A cave that our ancestors lived, an aboriginal hut, or a skyscraper can't rest on math

and can't be put together with science. Even knowledge and understanding aren't

fundamental because no one knows how the steel or electricity work. In a sense

one might say "experience" or visceral knowledge are required but if this were strict-

ly true than a craneman could never lift his first load not the archetecht design his

first building.

As long as someone thinks he knows everything he can't really see anything. We have

this inane believe born of the confusion of language that in aggregate the human race

knows everything but in reality to the degree we know anything we are individually abnd

collectively blind.

[cladking]

I would not exactly call 43ft high tiny in itself. Only in comparison to the GP

That's my point.

Where is the almost great pyramid they built first to learn how to lift stones?

[cladking]

Another month, another "I don't like established science because it doesn't agree with what I wish was true" rant. Nothing new.

Maybe it's not science or scientists that is the problem but rather the groups of scientists.

Invention and discovery are not a group activity. Ideas are born of individuals and one of the

craziest ideas ever invented was the PC nonsense that individual needs are secondary to the

group; that individual accomplishment and ideas are a dime a dozen. The world is falling off

the deep end because the collecrtive has been elevated to a higher status. This collective is

no more real than science or math. It is a construct which isn't composed of individuals but is

composed of ideas and beliefs. It is destroying science and society.

[seeder]

That's my point.

Where is the almost great pyramid they built first to learn how to lift stones?

So your hangup then, is back to how stones were lifted? many good theories have been put forward by professionals in the field and on forums like this. If you want THE ultimate, definitive answer.. then there isnt one. But many ideas suggest plausible methods. You just have to deal with that

[cladking]

Which means that anyone claiming to know that there were 2.3 million blocks (or more) and the delivery rate thereof is automatically and significantly (and embarassingly IMO) wrong from the start.

So if someone uses the 2.3 million stone assumption to base an estimate why don't you just

adjust the implied delivery rate in your head? I see no value in arguing the size, weight, or

number of stones in the pyramid. Does it ultimately matter just exactly how heavy or how

large the pyramid is? Maybe I'm missing something here.

[cladking]

So your hangup then, is back to how stones were lifted? many good theories have been put forward by professionals in the field and on forums like this. If you want THE ultimate, definitive answer.. then there isnt one. But many ideas suggest plausible methods. You just have to deal with that

Every single "plausible explanation" has been debunked.

Yes!!! I want the definitive answer because there is a deinitive answer and I strongly believe this definitive

answer is at our fingertips. I believe this answer could be important but I don't care. I want to KNOW the

answer because I've spent eight years searching for it.

Why won't they do the simple testing that would tell us? Why don't people care that we just keep getting

"ramps" shoved down our throats? The powers that be are spending more time trying to save the inane

and baseless ramps than they are doing the science that would answer the question. This is at least in

small part my fault. I'm being a distraction to scientists working in the field and don't like this. If they must

be distracted anyway then why not just spend twenty minutes to run a simple test? Why not take a few

seconds to sign off on the infrared scanning?

[Chaldera]

Ummm...when exactly were these plausible explanations all debunked? Did I miss something?

Damn...I knew I should've kept subscribing to Builders Throughout History: The Definitive Answers, but their price was just too much to swallow

[cormac mac airt]

So if someone uses the 2.3 million stone assumption to base an estimate why don't you just

adjust the implied delivery rate in your head? I see no value in arguing the size, weight, or

number of stones in the pyramid. Does it ultimately matter just exactly how heavy or how

large the pyramid is? Maybe I'm missing something here.

Pontificating on the quantity of blocks or delivery rate based on Petrie's over-estimate does no good to the discussion of how the GP was constructed whatsoever. As to adjusting any quantities/etc. to a more relevant approximation than Petrie's over-estimate, by actually paying attention to the specifics he and other experts have provided, I've already done as much in a file I have down to the blocks per year level. You wouldn't agree with it however as you believe yourself more qualified to say what does and doesn't exist on the Giza Plateau than people who've actually been there and performed the measurements and calculations themselves. Therein lies your problem.

I see no value in one taking an over-estimate of the material used in a structure and pretending it has any bearing on the actual quantity of same used to begin with. Especially when one claims a delivery rate for what is effectively a throw-away number/quantity, which realistically is what Petrie's "2,300,000" number is when one has actually read the specifics in his text.

Lastly if nearly three and a half years worth of material in the form of blocks (due to the presence of an internal mound/hill/massif/whatever one wants to call it) weren't used as well as the adjustment for internal chambers is made then obviously one is necessarily wrong in claiming how much work was required or what the delivery rate was of same in order to build the GP, based on an incorrect quantity to begin with (i.e. - Petrie's over-estimate).

Edit to add:

This is at least in small part my fault. I'm being a distraction to scientists working in the field and don't like this.

Contrary to your apparently over-inflated ego I'd say it's more likely that very few, if any actual scientists, have read or even care what you've had to say concerning the GP and Egyptian construction. It's definitely not made a dent in what is known about Ancient Egypt.

cormac

Edited July 15, 2014 by cormac mac airt

[cladking]

I see no value in one taking an over-estimate of the material used in a structure and pretending it has any bearing on the actual quantity of same used to begin with. Especially when one claims a delivery rate for what is effectively a throw-away number/quantity, which realistically is what Petrie's "2,300,000" number is when one has actually read the specifics in his text.

If you believe someone's estimate is 50% too high then just rediuce the delivery rate

by one third. If his time line is double reality then divide by two. It's bwetter to address

the result and the argument rather than just numbers. No two experts agree on these

things anyway so why get hung up on minutia? Think of it this way; even if I subscribed

to all of your numbers and stats it doesn't affect my argument. Your numbers don't affect

theories about aliens.

Didn't we just very recently go through the math and show that all the chambers and pass-

ages in the pyramid add up to a fraction of 1% of the weight. There's no need to get hung

up on trivia.

Lastly if nearly three and a half years worth of material in the form of blocks (due to the presence of an internal mound/hill/massif/whatever one wants to call it) weren't used as well as the adjustment for internal chambers is made then obviously one is necessarily wrong in claiming how much work was required or what the delivery rate was of same in order to build the GP, based on an incorrect quantity to begin with (i.e. - Petrie's over-estimate).

It doesn't really have much effect on the amount of lifting and therefore it has little effect on the

delivery rate. Think of it this way; if the entire pyramid was a natural formation except for the top

stone this stone still had to be placed and the delivery rate was one divided by the time to lift it.

Just think that if there was a hill the job was already started by mother nature but the men still

needed to finish it and lift every stone not in the hill.

This is trivia and it's distracting.

Tellme what number to use and I'll try using it in my arguments if you think it will help. Hell, I'll

even go along with your hill and little stones at the top if it will help to address the issues. I can't

pretend that internal chambers reduced lifting because it is observable.

Contrary to your apparently over-inflated ego I'd say it's more likely that very few, if any actual scientists, have read or even care what you've had to say concerning the GP and Egyptian construction. It's definitely not made a dent in what is known about Ancient Egypt.

I never said they cared. I doubt they much do.

Hawass referred to geysers (obviously) as "other unscientific theories on the net" in 2010.

It seems apparent they are aware that ramps have been shot full of holes judging by the fact

they've been bending over backwards the last couple years to bail them out. Remember it

was only several weeks ago that Dr Lehner said that we can think of the builders as having

slept on the ramps. Shortly after that the "port" to which the stones were delivered was said

to not need roads leading from it because they dragged stones on wet sand.

There have been several such things. Remember the "mks-sceptre"? I sincerely hope you're

right that I'm no distraction but I fear you're wrong and in any case the science still isn't being

done.

[cladking]

Damn...I knew I should've kept subscribing to Builders Throughout History: The Definitive Answers, but their price was just too much to swallow

The word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age and there's no cultural context to support ramps.

Ramps are a construct made up of best guesses and assumptions as they apply to lifting stones to build pyramids.

The evidence doesn't exist.

I doubt the debunkment is considered relevant here even though people can't see the reality with their eyes full of ramps.

[Harte]

Didn't we just very recently go through the math and show that all the chambers and pass-

ages in the pyramid add up to a fraction of 1% of the weight. There's no need to get hung

up on trivia.

Well, especially when you're pretending to know the full extent of all the void spaces in the GP, ignoring ultrasound results

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

If you believe someone's estimate is 50% too high then just rediuce the delivery rate

by one third. If his time line is double reality then divide by two. It's bwetter to address

the result and the argument rather than just numbers. No two experts agree on these

things anyway so why get hung up on minutia? Think of it this way; even if I subscribed

to all of your numbers and stats it doesn't affect my argument. Your numbers don't affect

theories about aliens.

Didn't we just very recently go through the math and show that all the chambers and pass-

ages in the pyramid add up to a fraction of 1% of the weight. There's no need to get hung

up on trivia.

It doesn't really have much effect on the amount of lifting and therefore it has little effect on the

delivery rate. Think of it this way; if the entire pyramid was a natural formation except for the top

stone this stone still had to be placed and the delivery rate was one divided by the time to lift it.

Just think that if there was a hill the job was already started by mother nature but the men still

needed to finish it and lift every stone not in the hill.

This is trivia and it's distracting.

Tell me what number to use and I'll try using it in my arguments if you think it will help. Hell, I'll

even go along with your hill and little stones at the top if it will help to address the issues. I can't

pretend that internal chambers reduced lifting because it is observable.

I never said they cared. I doubt they much do.

Hawass referred to geysers (obviously) as "other unscientific theories on the net" in 2010.

It seems apparent they are aware that ramps have been shot full of holes judging by the fact

they've been bending over backwards the last couple years to bail them out. Remember it

was only several weeks ago that Dr Lehner said that we can think of the builders as having

slept on the ramps. Shortly after that the "port" to which the stones were delivered was said

to not need roads leading from it because they dragged stones on wet sand.

There have been several such things. Remember the "mks-sceptre"? I sincerely hope you're

right that I'm no distraction but I fear you're wrong and in any case the science still isn't being

done.

I have a better idea. Tell me how your pontification of 2,300,000 blocks used in the GP and the delivery rate thereof is even remotely relevant to what, using the information provided by Petrie himself, is essentially a 1/3 reduction of actual cut blocks of limestone which includes the massif/hillock/whatever you'd like to call it as well as the chambers/shafts within along with the information from the Diary of Merrer who mentions the GP's construction during the 27th year of Khufu's reign. All of this while knowing that a reigning king started construction of his tomb almost immediately after taking the throne. I can answer that for you, said pontifications are not relevant to anything approaching reality.

The chambers and passages upon which the GP sits exist contemporaneously with the hillock/massif/whatever. All of these things must be included in any attempt to calculate a delivery rate. You don't get to pick and choose because you don't like the information that's available.

You do however pretend to know how much work overall it took to move blocks, which were of various sizes, to different course levels as if they all required the same amount of effort. It doesn't take a genius to know that, as an example, moving a 5000 pound block to 280 feet takes more effort than moving a 700 pound block to the same height.

It does have an effect on the amount of lifting in total as well as the delivery rate since with a significantly reduced quantity of blocks over the commonly accepted timeframe (20 years) or a revised timeframe, if one takes Merrer's mention of the GP's construction during Khufu's 27th year into account, there would obviously be a significantly reduced amount of blocks required per year over either period. You can't ignore this fact by claiming the equivalent of "Nuh uh!"

Hawass made no such reference to geysers at all. That is clearly and solely what you want to believe, since you've made it apparent you'd like to be seen as somehow knowledgeable of the subject by actual people in the field. There's not a shred of evidence than any such person has either read, referred to or cares about your fantasy.

cormac