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.

 

Pyramids buit from the top down?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Reading about a theory proposed by Robert Schoch, I started to wonder about the construction of the great pyramids.


In his book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders [31] Boston University geology professor Robert Schoch details key anomalies in both radiocarbon studies; most notably that samples taken in 1984 from the upper courses of the Great Pyramid gave upper dates of 3809 B.C. (± 160yrs), nearly 1400yrs before the time of Khufu, while the lower courses provided dates ranging from 3090-2723 B.C (± 100-400yrs) which correspond much more closely to the time Khufu is believed to have reigned. Given that the data imply that the pyramid was built (impossibly) from the top down, Dr. Schoch argues that if the information provided by the study is correct, it makes sense if it is assumed the pyramid was built and rebuilt in several stages suggesting later Pharaohs such as Khufu were only inheritors of an existing monument, not the original builders, and merely rebuilt or repaired previously constructed sections.
en.wikipedia.org...


If his evidence is correct, and the top of the Khufu's pyramid is older than the bottom, to what could this be attributed? What I mean is, would it be easier to build the top, then clear the sand below, gradually adding sandstone to support the upper layers.


Forgive the crudeness of this drawing, I pieced it together in paint in about 3 minutes.

Why wouldn't this work?




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
It seems logical at first, but you have to consider that this would mean that the sand was originally that high. Following that either a massive sand dune was piled up to create this pyramid, or it already existed at that level. The original would actually have to be true for this to work, as there would exist a major downward slope on the Giza Plateau to where they stand. Even accounting for thousands of years of erosion, this does not exist. Also, how do you build beneath the tip of the pyramid without removing the vital sand that supports the it? The only plausable way that I can see is perhaps a wooden frame to support the structure as they went down, that would in turn be removed as the pyramid was able to support itself.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Why wouldn't this work?

Notice that the article argues a constant contstruction and building over old part, not building from the top down. Plus it might be as simple as the Egyptians used older stone from other monuments to fill in the gaps of the pyramid.

Having sand beneath it would probably also be too unstable to support it when it becomes large. The whole pyramid would shift in height if just one square meter of the sand settled differently from the rest and most likely collapse.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by merka]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Ever hear of this:




A slight man weighing only 100 pounds, Ed spent twenty years constructing large works of art, like the world’s largest valentine - a heart weighing over 5000 lbs, and a giant rocking chair that rocks at the touch of one finger. He also built a large table made out of solid coral - in the shape of Florida. Driven by some unseen force, Ed made an enormous (working) sun dial, which towers twenty-five feet in the air. Aligned to the North Star, the sun dial is so accurate, it tells time within two minutes. The massive entrance to Ed's "Coral Castle" is made from a single coral block weighing nine tons! This mammoth slab balances so perfectly on its center of gravity, that a visitor can easily push it open with one finger. In fact, every piece in Ed's castle was made from using coral dug from the earth, all by this one man with a fourth-grade education.



www.jantjeblokhuismulder.com...



Anyway, it is thought that he "Levitated" all these huge corals weighing tons all by himself.

To answer your question, hmmm, i dont think you could build starting at the top.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
You make a good point about the dunes. I honestly never thought of that. Could it be that there existed a large dune, then as the dune receaded and was displaced to another location, the new dune was used for the next pyramid?

I'm pretty sure that balances and wooden scaffolding would be needed for construction either way, but these are minor problems compared to the moving of the sandstone blocks upward.

What are the pyramids resting on now? are they just on sand, or on a slab of sandstone? or did they compress what was once sand into sandstone over the millenia?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
dgtempe- Edward Leedskalnin is one of my heros i find coral castle as facinating as the pyramids, more so infact because it was done by one man. check out www.coralcastle.com to see the amazing things he made.


THE SECRET TO THE UNIVERSE IS 7129 / 6105195

god i wish i knew what that means!



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
What I don't see from the illustration is this: How do they get the stones UNDER the existing top?

You'd have to lift the whole thing up. Remember, that there is a solid paving of stone on most layers, and the stones on many layers aren't tall enough for a work team to walk beside (most are half the size of a man or less.)

So how (and why) would they jack up the top layers to insert things at the bottom?



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Anyway, it is thought that he "Levitated" all these huge corals weighing tons all by himself.

To answer your question, hmmm, i dont think you could build starting at the top.


Why is it thought that he levitated this, when there's at least one picture (on that site, and other places) showing him lifting the blocks with a tripod of logs and a set of pulleys?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
What I don't see from the illustration is this: How do they get the stones UNDER the existing top?

You'd have to lift the whole thing up. Remember, that there is a solid paving of stone on most layers, and the stones on many layers aren't tall enough for a work team to walk beside (most are half the size of a man or less.)

So how (and why) would they jack up the top layers to insert things at the bottom?


I think he means that the top of the pyramid is on the sand, then the sand is moved under the pyramid slowly and blocks are placed into the holes that are made by the removed sand? I personally don't think this happened but it's another pyrmamid threory to add to the list!



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I don't think it actually happened that way BTW. I'm just curious why this method wouldn't work. If we were to build a comparable pyramid now, coulds this be a method that we couuld use, whithout having to use cranes or anything too modern. People are always talking about how it's impossible for the buildings to have been built by man. Schoch's theory of the top of the pyramids being older than the bottoms just sent my mind off with construction theories.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
As a Civil Engineer I have to admit that this thread has given me a bloody good laugh for the past twenty minutes or so.

And heres why;


  1. The sand beneath the blocks would need to be compacted to take the weight of the whole stucture prior to anything being built
  2. Even with compacted sand, there is little chance that it would have sufficient bearing capacity to take the weight of the structure
  3. There is no way in hell you could get the pyramid tolerances as close as they are by sliding things in underneath - where are your leverage points to move the blocks?
  4. Without near perfect visual alignment, the structure would be uneven and likely to fail
  5. The inner chambers could not have been constructed in this manner


The theory is laughable. Sorry



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Thanks neformore, that's what I was looking for. I'm no engineer, so I didn't know these things were required.

I'm still curious as to what the pyramids a re built on now. Is it a slab of sandstone, or just levelled compressed sand.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Since it's agreed that the pyramid wasn't built from the top down, that leaves us with the question of apparently-incongruous carbon 14 dates from upper and lower levels, which would raise the question (I don't have the Schoch book to reference with) how was the carbon dating done? Stone can't be carbon dated, so what material did they use for the carbon samples, and what assumptions were made that led to their apparent assumption that their carbon-samples represent the time that section of the pyramid was built, and not for example from some later time (in the case of the "too-late-in-time" lower-pyramid carbon dates)?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The carbon being dated was from charcoal deposits found inside the pyramid at various levels. Because it's within the timespan that carbon dating is valid (within 60,000 years), it can accurately determine that al least the wood used in that ash fouund is a few hundred, if not thousand years older than the carbon found in the lower levels. However, this could be attributed to the trees used to make the coal found in the upper portion was older than the trees used in the lower portions.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Oh boy.

The organic material on top might indeed have been older than on bottom. I don't see any mystery here at all. For example, on the first floor on my house I have drapes I bought a week ago at the local Fabric Mill. On the second floor, however, there is a wooden frame that I know full well comes from 18th century.


Does it mean I built my house from top down? No.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AelitaOh boy.

The organic material on top might indeed have been older than on bottom. I don't see any mystery here at all. For example, on the first floor on my house I have drapes I bought a week ago at the local Fabric Mill. On the second floor, however, there is a wooden frame that I know full well comes from 18th century.


Aelita, I made that point.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
However, this could be attributed to the trees used to make the coal found in the upper portion was older than the trees used in the lower portions.


as I said before, I was merely putting forth an idea that came to mind briefly while reading an article. I posted the idea here to get other people oppinions on the validity of that theory. Obviously, through collaborative scientific method we were able to dismiss the theory as being impossible. Now that that is done, are the Oh boys really needed?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Obviously, through collaborative scientific method we were able to dismiss the theory as being impossible. Now that that is done, are the Oh boys really needed?


No it's not. If it helps any, it was a rather light hearted "oh boy" as opposed to a grim and mean spirited "oh boy".

I was in Luxor once, and saw the remaining part of the unfinished contruction there. There was indeed a huge clay slope which, it would seem, they used to haul things up.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The pyramids were all built from top down starting from the ground level and moving digging downwards. It is a magnificent building strateg. This is the only real way that they have been created and the only real way to for more to be created even bigger and more impressive than the existing ones...

apostolosdimpolitis.simplesite.com...

This is the ancient building strategy that the civilization who built them used. In our days we are going to see more of such buildings ....



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dgtempe



Anyway, it is thought that he "Levitated" all these huge corals weighing tons all by himself.

.


When I visited Coral Castle and took the tour last year, all the woo claims were poo poo'd by the tour guide. It was built with hard work and an understanding of basic engineering. Anything else has been made up by people trying to sell books to the gullible. They even have the equipment used and there are plenty of photos showing him using it,


As has been stated already, the carbon dates come from the organic material used to heat the mortar, namely wood.
All this shows is that they ran out of wood and had to use progressively older and older material as they went on.

More details here
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: keinzaron
The pyramids were all built from top down starting from the ground level and moving digging downwards. It is a magnificent building strateg. This is the only real way that they have been created and the only real way to for more to be created even bigger and more impressive than the existing ones...

apostolosdimpolitis.simplesite.com...

This is the ancient building strategy that the civilization who built them used. In our days we are going to see more of such buildings ....


Ok, so after they had finished carving the pyramid out of the bedrock, why did they then chop it into small blocks and then fill all the cracks with mortar and put it back together

or in other words, I'll have what you're smoking



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join