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.

 

pre pyramid plateau

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

and so just to cap this for simplicitys sake
i will write a descriptive passage regarding the potential of a ram pump in such a structure, i have trouble getting pictures up so,
the check valve on the proposed output line, the dead end shaft that is the output must be a swing gate or sliding block that operates between (adjusting the backpressure) 67psi to 3360psi plus.
you see why now theres a massive stone weight sat on the mech.
if the percussive force directed up from the sub chamber is not held it will shake the system apart.
as the wave in fluid hits the chamber roof the fluid spreads in a 360 degree flower so the kinetic energy is contained or redirected, the accoustic energy from the hammer is 60 percent retarded but some travels through the rock at the appropriate frequency (mass,consistancy and structure) and shocks the compressed air in the standpipe or 'chambers' as it is in the structure.
this is where the fringy stuff gets a foothold and i would like to show all interested why, and i imagine most of the fringers would be delighted to know there is some spooky engineering
i would at this point mention cavitaion and splash wear are readily apparent on the ceiling in the chamber, oft neglected.
here also it is neccesary to underline the rarefaction wave is potentially equally strong and rarefies the water turning it into gas, before it quickly recondenses(?) the oxygen is readily reabsorbed but the h remains aloof.
and thats where the fact ends (like thats not crazy enough) but the theoretical situation continues....
the other root to theories is the massive percussive force of the shock wave directed vertically up.
the corbelled chamber is an accoustic amplifier.
so i dont wish to get into all that, at least not until its a stronger hypothesis. and thats probably not going to be me, because after poking at it a little with my vocational skills i find the scale and concepts involved intimidating.
In the circulating pump configuration, the well shaft reduces the efficiency by 29%. More significantly, in the elevating pump configuration, the well shaft reduces the efficiency by 68%. If the well shaft was incorporated in the original pyramid design then the pumping efficiency was not of prime importance. If the pumping efficiency was not of prime importance then the pump function is not the most important function.The King’s chamber has features of a resonating chamber. The granite walls are freestanding and isolated from the surrounding limestone masonry. This allows the room to freely resonate but back to the pump
and here is relatively uncluttered section
images.google.fr... F%2Fwww.bibliotecapleyades.net%2Fpiramides%2Fesp_piramide_11c.htm&h=698&w=925&tbnid=t8OcUCCx1-PdwM%3A&docid=HQMD3fyT_ucdqM&ei=2Ri6V4eXEcHeU6P7k5gN&tbm =isch&client=firefox-b-ab&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=3125&page=1&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=0ahUKEwjH56XttdPOAhVB7xQKHaP9BNMQMwggKAIwAg&bih=701&biw=1280
google images sorry
but let me throw in something here, i am not alluding to accretion theory, but you see the air passages from the queens chamber, can we consider that the limit of those was the limit of a preceeding structure, perhaps a terraced one and the kings chamber was an upgrade, this may not work as the right air shaft from the queens chamber has to go around the gallery but maybe it was demoted down to pneumatic spring from standpipe?
borchats accretion theory maintained they were using water pumped up the well shaft, in fact the top of the well shaft would be a low pressure area, corresponding with external ground level rather than that of the moat so water would not pass into the queens chamber , controlled in the grotto, but any that did would have to pass the great step and be recirculated from the descending passage.
potentially quite a structure once you get past intrusive burial issues
just need to work out why they put an empty granite box in a oscillating variable pressure chamber, potentially fed with hydrogen, or perhaps its coincidental








posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
wow username74, that's 6 posts of yours in a row without any response from anyone

You ever get the impression that no ones reading anything you post ?



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   
mentioning of pump ´theory´ alone is enough to stay away I guess..


edit on 22-8-2016 by anti72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

yep, relying on it to an extent!



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: anti72

what?, without examining the physical evidence?, surely not!
happy to accept a spiral corridor, but not happy to show your procedeural process?.
because the pump theory is the only theory we cant accept because, it has no basis in reality ?.
except its the only theory with some physical numbers behind it?
and of course we cant give it too much kudos, against philology?
would you please list your reasonable objections to this and perhaps we can consider the reasonable objections to your pet theory on the same evidential level.
and by the by i am not convinced that this theory is correct, but it has a lot more behind it than some.
that would include yours.
this is a route of enquiry based mostly on physical specifications.
not so hard to grasp, i thought.
is it really so deserving of such obfusication?
well, put your money where your mouth is!
this is, i remind you a theory, not a hypothesis, which would mean it is a hypothesis with supporting evidence.
would you like to refute some of this?
"mentioning of pump ´theory´ alone is enough to stay away I guess.."
would you like to qualify your rhetoric?
unlikely but.....?




posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

it was sunday, it rained too. slow day in hell?
i ve seen you there!



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Your initial question was..pre pyramid plateau..in general???

the plateau is packed with different monuments / features of different times.
Just one monument is enough for a bunch of questions.

bedrock realities.

cheers








edit on 22-8-2016 by anti72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: anti72

yeah, i know, it was my first thread an about three replies in i knew i had blown it and spread myself too thin

then spent a week defending the lack of reliable chronology of the sphinx, something i hadnt really considered up to that point,
and very educational it was too! though not conclusive, and nor should this be an expectation in this field.
so i realised that due to my thread title i had to live up to it.
but my initial intention was to postulate that all the notable sites had a prehistory, as they do and i felt that this may stretch back a little further than we assume, implying that there was a different cultural mode that emerged from the dryas, that for various reasons is invisible to us, from our cultural perspective.
so it followed that the great pyramid, sublime in the sense of its mass, yet made from managable bits(1-2ton), in contrast to comparative wonders, such as baalbek etc, and showing signs of not been an ornamental structure, in design i delved into its pedigree and.... what d'ya know?
it has one, well, a tangible analogue. its siting and statistics.
and as you correctly point out...
"the plateau is packed with different monuments / features of different times.
Just one monument is enough for a bunch of questions.
bedrock realities. "
so in retrospect, it was the correct title, if a little ambitious.
what i will say, in studying these structures, of antiquity, i mean, i do not find what i expect to find.
in some cases this has been resolved and in others it has become more bizarre!
i do not doubt egyptology, intrusive burial is burial nonetheless.
grafitti is grafitti. and they were a wierd lot werent they?
i dont do aliens in any practical sense, but dont they look like they started out as a cargo cult then morphed into a funery cult?

maybe things were expunged from their records and we are the victims of the effects of censorship from the past, but my thing is why, how.
when and who will be clearer after the forensic.
and the methodology of construction can reveal alot.

there are a few examples in giza of creations that seem to precede this tech level.
its apparently not a linear evolution, this is suprising to me
edit on 22-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

so i have an idea.
for the prehistoric intellectual tool shed.
growing up in the 70s we had a game/toy called spirogragh.
anyone have this?
basically its a set of geometric shapes, just circles and rulers in mine, but all with equally sized teeth, and pins. so you could take a straight piece,pin it to your paper, and get one of your circles of varying diameter, an on all the peices there are holes, for your pen. so you put yor pen in your circle and roll it like a rack and pinion and you draw a perfect elongated spisal. i think it was a draughtmans kit made a toy.
you would need some kind of expedient analogue, and maybe template to create dry ahslar.
for bench work i have another old tool. its like a trellis fence. diamond shaped. when you compress it the diamonds get taller and thinner and when you stretch it they are shorter and fatter, its meant to marking out holes for uphostery or carpentry but if you combine the two you have the mechanical analogue of c+c machine ir a replica writing, scribing machine. sticks and hide, just like the wall of a yurght (mongolian steppe structure)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

and if you can suss out a lathe. like everytime you spit a rabbit to cook. then we have an analogue to all present milling machinery so my first conclusion is we arent as bright as they were,
stuck in a rut eh.
so this industrial vase making in egypt? lathes.
i reckon. twirling it in our palms, i think not !.
how much water used to fall in this area.
what if?
nah, too soon!
but if we lost electricity tomorrow, in an induced emp future or such, do you not think we would rely on other motive forces.
i postulate something in the ballpark of water tech/catastrophe(take your pick/direct or indirect effect)/climate change, desert. water distrubution under theocratic control in aftermath, no engineers left or willing for whatever reason
purely speculative, obviously



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

and just to build on that, to make it relevant to the geographical aspect of the title, and still making it up as i go, on the plateau, after it got really dry, there was a step pyramid, that used to give water, see opening postulation, and despite the continuing seasonal nile, water was an issue, and afore mentioned structure was massively renovated and turned into a symbol of power to whatever became the pharonic dynasty. water under theocratic control as follows previous post. and maybe they brought the water through it again in a less impressive water garden fashion.
and thereafter pyramids were built were done pointy style, locally. that would explain their cargo cult ishness.
#, maybe i should write a book marduk!




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

but stepping away from that random postulation, lets give the pyramid its precedence.
initially for its dominance of the vista.
is that the reason for its size, to dominate the vista?
was it the first pyramid on the plateau?
from its siting you would expect the second pyramid to be the first, perhaps.
from size you would expect the third to be the first.
perhaps they were constucted as a brace. the fact the third has ashlar as casing stones could imply it escaped renovation as , relative to the size of other two it is of little consequence for conveyance of glory.
or does accretion theory have a place?
could they even have been step pyramids initially ?
or is its size a quantity of physical function rather than symbolic function?
herein is a salient point, normally glory is affected by ornamentation andd material quality rather than size and unornamented austerity, what kind of message is this to convey? its not a holdfast or fortress.
surely unique in the world of prehistory ish. or is this a crass assumption?
it is by its orthodox pedigree, placed out of context.
obviously there are many factors in play and have been for centuries, colonialism, cultural differences, bureaucracys and the regular vicissitudes of the region over history all take a toll on the original facts.
outside the paradigm, taken as a group of structures this manifestation of labour, skill and material is unprecedented.
regardless of social mechanism.
so in the end, culturally, i have to accept ancient egypt is mostly as the orthodoxy states, however the pyramid does not reflect these values.
notably, an opinion about the pyramids origins need not conflict directly with egyptology.
it was simply always there in their memory. so they made it theirs.
territorial pissings, a feature of all empires, all mammals. hardly a controversial postulation.
so where are the pottery shards? i hear you cry.
maybe there arent any.
at what point does the idea kick in, that the people who had the technical ability, social cohesian and continuity to build something of this nature and specification, whatever you think it is or isnt, wanted to live in an area with nothing but pastural potential in hovels throwing their teacups in a midden heap at the end of the street.
i dont want to live in water filtration stations and i have no particular wish for interment in a pump station.
so you could deduce, that if it was infrastructure originally, the egyptians didnt regard it as such, therefore were not responsible, regardless of claims and appropriations.
and so it follows that the people who did build it never lived on the site, whenever that was, and were not around when the egyptians settled.
and so if our builders were out of this time then were they the type of folks who were carving in gobekli tepe.
the sort of people who appear to be a little too driven by their own agenda for pottery shards and farming.
and prefer sky burial to all that lying around waiting for us lot.
if it was a ram pump, thats almost on the scale of terraforming.
are we sure step pyramids have nothing to do with terraced or step farming and microclimates.
like a model or pattern. and then the sands came, maybe.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

a reply to: username74

so we have some expedient quantity surveying tools, strings and gyroscopes (and dont expect to find their remains, all organic), all physical analogues, of our tech. so you see we learnt nothing. we mimic well, but we dont reason so well.
we identify patterns, but we apply them without sufficient analysis.
so all our civilisation has done is reinvented the wheel, multiple times.
original precepts, we had a few but our tech is neccesarily just a continuation of several branches of the same thing.
manifestation of physical properties, developed with offshoots as a result of our direct challenges with the local enviroment.
so to drive this point home, simplified,......
i have an example, the end of the last great war. wwII . allies built radar. germans infrared.
both theoretical at the time, both coming from correct or incorrect ideologies.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
so to further this within the world of computer games/simulations/models, you would refer to this as a technology tree.
if you start down one branch of this tree there is a finite 'phasespace' you can fill (read as realm of potential development within available toolkit) and other routes where the primary supposition allows development
of a different branch of tech, with different applications to the same end.
a little like geneaology, but as we now know, it would be better to regard the system as a braided stream, were routes can dead end or recombine, rather than being mutually exclusive as is the tree branch.
a more flexible model, if you will.
like systems science as a roadmap.
like the dry ashlar wall systems and i have since learnt a crude distinction within the classification as
convex polygonal, or block.
well indeed, two distinct markers in antiquity, squarish and random polygonal.
clearly apparent.
so back to the tool shed.
the bit i have been shying away from.
i cant give you the physical tools they had.
we can measure and mark.
how do we cut , its easier that i first list what you cant have, as in accord with orthodox theory, and obviously geography has some sway.
no wheels, no pulleys
no hard metal/metallurgy beyond predefined tech/temperature level (very bad form in my humble opinion)
no precise tools
no measuring devices (though we have postulated such)
no beasts of burden
no infrastructure
no central organisation, though i must contend our standard version of such is very linear, hierarchical, centralised thus neccesarily blinkered to alternatives, so semantics comes into play again, as with culture/civilisation definition.
probably they dont even get a spade for the foundations.
.so in fact we define them as savages. academically, catagorically and socially.
when it comes to size, we decree brute force.
when it comes to quality we decree lots of time and exceptional talent.
is it a reflection of our existence, that we must denigrate those who came before
that we must deny the apparence of the evidence before us
do we subconciously recognise our inferiority in the face of these awesome constructions and equate it to barbarous qualities, vis a vis our post colonial civilisational tendancies.
hmmmm.....
you will notice it gets quiet on these construction related threads, when such things are postulated, perhaps
to deride such notions would be to aquiesce to their pertinence.
as though to admit that unconciously advocated centralised control may not be the origin of true efficient human relationship and endeavor, that another method of organisation, was moving the big rocks.
because they sure as hell arent giving them tools to do it with!
bear in mind this hierarchical structure is endemic to our relationship with everything we percieve, even academia!
this is not to degrade the value of empirical studies, but boundaries between disciplines are oft illusory!



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

so as an aside, heres a little math. just to bring the alledged construction and its mass into perspective,
lets be generous and say we have 24 hour shifts.
24 by 365 is 8760
8760 hours per year.
8760 by 27 (years) is 236520 hours.
if the orthodox figure is to be believed, in continuous motion, for 27 years, 24 hours a day, at a mass of 5900000 tonnes is,
an average accretion of 25 tonnes an hour!
thats at 24 hours, 365 days for 27 years.
thats 2500000 meters cubed, which is a growth rate of 10.6m3 an hour.
if tou think this is correct tell me how
it is possible????????
if they dont work at night, double the figures, if they work 6 months a year double again.
is archeaology outside natural laws????
edit on 28-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

oh and just to add, that as you were building up you would have to accelerate the rate of climb of blocks and postulated mech to move them, as the courses reduce in size the rate of ascent must increase, at least in a linear assesment.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

is archeaology outside natural laws????


Nope.

You have been reading "popular understandings" about how pyramids are constructed.

You have not been reading what archaeologists/Egyptologists are saying.

For example, hundreds of work gangs were active during the building phase so hundreds of blocks of stone were being moved around at any given second. For another example, the pyramid isn't solid.

(we've been over this (and over it and over and over) here on ATS.)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

"You have been reading "popular understandings" about how pyramids are constructed.
You have not been reading what archaeologists/Egyptologists are saying."
well, ive been reading all accounts of such , and i always read what the egyptologists say, though i havent read all of it but neither have they translated all their sources, and long may it continue.
also, at your reccomendation i furthered my reading on the evolution of tombs. fascinating and very convincing it is, although i still maintain its cargo cultishness
obviously this goes in step with construction, but remember i dont contest any of this.
just the elements of the giza necropolis, and only a few select of those.

well i just took the token 27 year for the g p, so yeah, it was a little strong, but 27 years is 27 years and thats the math.
"For example, hundreds of work gangs were active during the building phase so hundreds of blocks of stone were being moved around at any given second. For another example, the pyramid isn't solid."
thats a phenomenal rate to put in place, still, i am sure there are cavaties or Jean Pierre Houdin would have had no theory, but an appreciable proportion of its mass?
well i will read on.
there is however a limit to the amount if mechanisms and men you can fit in a certain area and as you go up, well, this should be a deciding factor is any theory as to how they put this together, and theres plenty of those!
i do have to say ive never seen one that works for me.
if i had to try and construct it i would try to build the internal components first with the minimum base below them.
so like a platform with a supported internal skeleton, then cover it.
what a nightmare! and this material has to be harvested though usually you work through a stockpile, and transported
they must have lost a foreman every week to heart attack and stress related suicide!
how do you move these close fitting of the blocks so tight together, how do you shove such weight to adjust it without it boucing back, over a hairline joint. its not going to slide.
youve got to take extra time in the fine work.
takes 60 stonemasons and countless labour to build a cathedral over a century, so you can argue that theres more decorative work, but this thing has enough material for 3 empire state buildings.
it should have taken up to a century to move that mass on a seasonal basis, with a million plus population and associated logistics.
and they cant have pi or iron both of which are in the great pyramid.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd
oh and regarding massive constructions, the great pyramid;
just to bring the constructions mass into perspective,
lets be generous and say we have 24 hour shifts.
24 by 365 is 8760
8760 hours per year.
8760 by 27 (years) is 236520 hours.
if the orthodox figure is to be believed, in continuous motion, for 27 years, 24 hours a day, at a mass of 5900000 tonnes is,
an average accretion of 25 tons an hour!
thats at 24 hours, 365 days for 27 years.
thats 2500000 meters cubed, which is a growth rate of 10.6m3 an hour.
if tou think this is correct tell me how
it is possible????????
if they dont work at night, double the figures, if they work 6 months a year double again.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

and this is my reply to marduk to his statement in the ashlar thread, regarding my previous reply

"" "oh dear, your little fantasy math fell apart didn't it "

not really.
its accurate in work done.
mass moved against time taken.
a time and motion study, they used to call them.
albeit only a brief one. more a quantitive approach.
you dont find it illustrates the point?

"i.e. if you had thought of two men building the pyramid, then you could probably halve those figures and I think its highly unlikely each man worked a 24 hour day, so you'd need to add at least a third on again to account for sleep,
Hey wait, we could use three men..."

and either thats misdirection or your maths 'aint so hot'.
unless you think i am trying to estimate the number of labour hours needed.
that was a given.
the analysis was to demonstrate the absolute minimum average accretion rate per hour within the postulated timescale.
(obviously if you want to work less you must increase value of metres cubed per hour)
the manpower is whatever is required to quarry shape transport and fit the pieces plus other logistics (we could call it ' x ' its value is unknown, a hypothetical constant)
thanks for checking my workings out, though!
we all make mistakes ""

so maybe you have a clearer, or at least more rational perspective?
if you feel i am tiresome, i understand, but i could empathise at this point!



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 02:53 PM
a reply to: username74

is archeaology outside natural laws????

"Nope.
You have been reading "popular understandings" about how pyramids are constructed.
You have not been reading what archaeologists/Egyptologists are saying.
For example, hundreds of work gangs were active during the building phase so hundreds of blocks of stone were being moved around at any given second. For another example, the pyramid isn't solid.
(we've been over this (and over it and over and over) here on ATS.)"

hmmmmm, i ve considered this for a while, still dont know what you mean by "popular understandings", though i do understand how to not be popular.
"(we've been over this (and over it and over and over) here on ATS.)"
and i have to suggest that you do it again. because i saw no satisfactory conclusion in the posts about 10 years ago when i started reading this site. maybe i missed it and you can link me to it or, even better a peer reviewed assessment of such.
just to show the working out like i did (oversimplified as it was).
because it essentially seems to come down to one motivating factor, the time line of the pyramids constuction has to be within the lifetime of said ruler.
and it follows that his sons pyramid should fall in his reign and so on.
so for instance if it actually, became apparent that the time it took to construct the pyramid was similar to a cathedral for instance, then it would throw out the idea of one mans lifespan.

but this is an irrational fear for egyptology, if the pyramid was a renovated monument, and not constructed from scratch it does not devalue the accumulated learning of egyptology, it doesnt make a century of dedicated work by hundreds of thousands of people untrue. it is just a current misinterpretation of the most obfusicated part of our history and would be an addition to our body of knowledge.
if there is no direct evidence to support such speculation why is it opposed so adamantly by a direct similar lack of evidence?
thats completely contrary to the principal of investigation!



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join