It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Think I Just Figured Out How the Pyramids Were Made

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I was reading about the London Hammer artifact recently and how scholars figure the hammer became encased in a stone concretion over a relatively short period of time. That got me thinking about forming stone. I've often wondered if past civilizations had mastered the art of manipulating stone. Machu Picchu with their marshmallow looking stones, other ancient stones which have impossibly perfect inside square corners, etc.

What if the ancients figured out how accelerate the process of creating stone? After all, stones are simply made of minerals and minerals are simply made of elements. It's a chemical process that normally happens over millions of years, but not in the London Hammer instance...and what about the limestone deposits around my shower head at home? Stone can form very quickly in the right conditions.

So, with this in mind and knowing the great pyramids are mainly composed of granite stones I wondered, what minerals is granite composed of? Turns out they're mainly Quartz and Felspar. Guess what else is mainly composed of Quartz and Felspar? Sand.

There's a lot of sand in Egypt. That would make a great material source for creating Granite don't you think? Now we've got to create large granite blocks. They would have needed a large mold for that. Let's see...how about the boxes in the Queen and King's chamber scholars refer to as sarcophagus'? The average granite block in the pyramids depending on where you read is 1.2m X 1.2m X .7m. The inside dimensions of the sarcophagus' is 2m x .9m x .7m which also varies between sources. I say it's close enough as perhaps more than 1 stone was made at a time, or there where other molds outside of the pyramids that have been since destroyed. Also it's possible that the original molds were removed once they weren't needed and the actual sarcophagus was put in place.

You'll probably need to get the water and sand (or whatever other chemicals they used) into the chambers. Some angled shafts leading directly into the chambers would do the trick nicely. More molds were being poured outside the pyramids...the chemicals were mixed in the large mysterious mixing/pouring bowls found all around the pyramids. The mixer would have looked very similar to the "flower vase" inside the Giza museum.

This would explain why there are 2 chambers. A very small pyramid was build first with the Queen's mold on top. This mold was used to form the surrounding base of the pyramid. As the pyramid grew they enclosed the Queen's chamber and throw the King's mold on top of the next level. They grand hallway was built on top of the inside pyramid as the larger pyramid grew around it.

They engineers probably realized the Queen's chamber was not efficient enough, so they made sure the King's chamber had a higher ceiling and very heavy duty beams above for hoisting the lid of the mold up and to lift the large stones out of the mold. The stones were likely lowered down the grand hallway with pulleys...their tie downs still evident in the walls.

Of course, this theory only helps explain how so many blocks were made when the supposed quarry was miles away (before the wheel was invented no less). The rest of the construction and engineering is still mind boggling.

If they could manufacture stone on site then that would cut down the construction time considerably. Perhaps the pharaoh did live to see it built after all?




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Battlefresh


If they could manufacture stone on site then that would cut down the construction time considerably.


Even faster to pour a single level at a time, why blocks? Make a mold, pour, disassemble mold, remove a few mold components and you have the next mold. Repeat.


edit on 10 27 2013 by donktheclown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Battlefresh

Mud into stone was the first lesson.

The story keeps truck in' so to speak....




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I mean yeah it's a promising lead backed by observation and critical thinking but it doesn't sound nearly as fun and simple as "Aliens did it."



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Battlefresh

I personally believe they were made out of something similar to concrete blocks, which sadly takes away all mystery and impossibility.

The theory even eliminates the need for any advanced technology, outside of what mixture they used to form the blocks.

This is not even a new theory, just not a theory that gets much attention.

www.geopolymer.org...

I don't know about the link, so don't shoot the messenger if it's bogus.

Add - NYT article from 2008.
mobile.nytimes.com...


edit on 26-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
If the material is liquid to begin with, it could explain Puma Punku. These blocks could be cast from a die. I also have the feeling that lasers were used to sculpt stone.


+6 more 
posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Battlefresh

There are a number of depictions of ancient Egyptian craftsman from paintings on tomb walls:

Limestone relief depicting two sculptors at work on a statue, from the mastaba (tomb) of Kaemrehu, 5th Dynasty funerary priest at the pyramid of Nyuserre Ini at Abusir.



Painting of 172 workers pulling a 20+ meter statue on a sled, with a person at the front of the sled pouring what appears to be water in front of the sled, presumably to reduce friction. It's from the tomb of Dhehutihotep, a nomarch (feudal lord basically) during the reigns of reigns of Amenemhat II, Senusret II and Senusret III (12th Dynasty):



Here are some carpenters, metal workers and brick makers from the tomb of Rekhmire, a Vizier during the reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II (18th Dynasty) :



Another painting from the same tomb depicting sculptors:



These depictions span a period of about 1000 years from about a century after the building of the Great Pyramid to a couple centuries after the last royal pyramids were constructed.

More importantly, the quarry from which the stone for the Great Pyramid (aka Pyramid of Khufu/Pyramid of Cheops) was quarried, is on the Giza plateau, 300 meters or so south of the pyramid which can be seen in the photo:



The squares you're seeing are basically the stumps from which the blocks were cut.

EDIT:

It's also important to note a few things:

- Pyramid building evolved. The first of the cut stone pyramids known is the Pyramid of Djoser. Prior to the pyramids, rulers were buried in rectangular mastabas made of mud-brick or stone with slopping walls. There were 2 and 3 level mastabas that were basically proto-pyramids (arguably, a 3 level mastaba is a step pyramid). The Pyramid of Djoser is essentially the same thing only they started with a square and built 6 levels. Like later pyramids, it was granite in the chambers, meh limestone blocks for the core and polished white limestone clad.

- That brings me to my next point; while granite was used for the internal chambers and hallways, the bulk of the pyramids were made of limestone. Despite what Tsoukalos, Childress, Coppens, etc contend, the core of the pyramids didn't have to be all that precise. Spaces between blocks and the blocks themselves were caked in gypsum mortar.

Finally:

Also I wanted to add that the idea that the blocks of the pyramids were poured isn't new. It was first hypothesized in the late 70's by material scientist Joseph Davidovits. The idea being basically that the blocks were a type of limestone cement. There's been some published research in support of this hypothesis but the evidence offered has also been refuted by petrologists.

Anyway, you can read about it at the Geopolymer Institute if you'd like. However, the preponderance of evidence convincingly discounts Davidovits' hypothesis which I might add doesn't include the granite (only the limestone).
edit on 2015-10-26 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
How do we explain the quarries? Mixing bowls?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

I don't doubt there were master stone cutters/movers and I believe the Valley of the Kings was made from quarried stone, but the quarries IMO don't show evidence of 2.1 million stones being cut. The poured stone was used to save time. The casing stones which were limestone were quarried and polished by amazing artisans.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
The Nile was once just a creek, all that mug being dug out turned it into a river



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Battlefresh
I'm just saying we have evidence of quarries, do we have evidence of making stones from minerals? I'm not saying evidence does not exist I am saying I've not seen anything like that. As big an operation as the pyramids were id imagine if they made their own stones from minerals they would have had a facility for that. If they made the stones from minerals in place on the pyramids while building then there would be evidence of that as well.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Battlefresh
I'm just saying we have evidence of quarries, do we have evidence of making stones from minerals? I'm not saying evidence does not exist I am saying I've not seen anything like that. As big an operation as the pyramids were id imagine if they made their own stones from minerals they would have had a facility for that. If they made the stones from minerals in place on the pyramids while building then there would be evidence of that as well.



Who says there is no evidence? There is always new discoveries (at least in the public sphere, excluding the "elites" sphere) to be made. Overlooking is a common practice of humanity.

As per the OP; I was clicking the thread to chime in about the Egyptian Stone Masons mastering rock manipulation, and building stones themselves, as well as transporting.

It's as easy as understanding the elemental natures, and their cause and effects.

Soften stone, you can now "craft" such, or cut perfect 90° angles. Heat up what is soft, temper, hardened, transport, place, voila. Another piece of the pyramidal puzzle


Now to deal with pesky free masons roaming around all special like they have secrets of old. .. wait?


Stone masonry is the oldest craft in the world, check out every ancient civilization. They share one practice in common, stone masonry/crafting.

The Egyptians just do it in "go big or go home" fashion.
edit on 26-10-2015 by Elementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist
Hey did you know in the second sentence of the post you replied to me from says "I'm not saying evidence doesn't exist..." And all that happy horse shiiii stuff? Anyways show me evidence as of modern science and all that recorded nonsense they do for making stones from minerals to make the pyramids, if you do, ill take quarries off the table and bin that as far fetched and out dated line of thinking.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

Wouldn't the angles shafts, large granite boxes, giant mixing/pouring bowls found around the pyramids count as evidence?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Battlefresh
Wouldn't those shafts have excess mineral deposits like limestone coming out of a shower drain?


edit on 26-10-2015 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

Not if they were pouring sand and water down them and possibly using another source for fusing the minerals. Yes it's far fetched, but if you combine the power plant theory perhaps they used electricity to accelerate the mineral creation.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Battlefresh
They have evidence of brick making sites near ziggurats made of brick, they have quarries near what are thought to be quarried stone. I think more likely they quarried the stone. If they made stones from.minerals id imagine they had to have or at the least common sense would have made a mold for the block shape thicker and out of harder stone by the hundreds near the sites they used the product on. If they did make stones from minerals that would be incredible to learn how they did no matter if it was for a pyramid or a piece of jewelry.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Battlefresh
a reply to: Brotherman
The poured stone was used to save time.


Really?

How long would it take for 'stones' of that size to set?

As for your granite hypothesis, that's patently ridiculous. The crystals attest to that.

Despite all the available evidence, some people still prefer to fly to crazy land!



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Battlefresh
a reply to: Brotherman
The poured stone was used to save time.


Really?

How long would it take for 'stones' of that size to set?

As for your granite hypothesis, that's patently ridiculous. The crystals attest to that.

Despite all the available evidence, some people still prefer to fly to crazy land!


I agree 100%
It always makes me cringe.
Someone even mentioned the pyramid 'power plant' theory in this thread too.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Please, indulge us with your "sane" explanation. If you have it all figured out I'm sure everyone (including us in crazy town) would love to hear it.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join