It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Giza the true builders???

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:29 AM
The Egyptian's claim the Great Pyramid of Giza was built in only 20 years.
The Egyptian's claim the Great Pyramid of Giza is built from 1,000,000 stones;
let's see…

The number of seconds in 20 years equal…

60 seconds time 60 minutes = 3600 Seconds per hour
60 minutes x 24 hours = 86,400 Seconds per day
1 day x 365.25 days = 1,557,600 Seconds per year
20 years x 31,557,600 = 631,152,000 Seconds to build Giza
631,152,000 seconds / 1,000,000 stones = 631.15 Seconds per stone
631.15 Seconds / 60 = 10.52 Minutes per stone

And I'm to believe that the ancient Egyptians quarried, transported, and laid a stone perfectly into place every 10.52 minutes, 24 hours per day for twenty years straight, or evey 5.26 minutes, if they worked just 12 hours per day.

Sorry, Egypt's claims are just not believeable. Who really built Giza and how long it really took is still a mystery.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:57 AM
Well, you're suggesting that they're only laying one stone at a time. Isn't it plausible that they laid more than one stone at a time?

Well, over-looking that, some Egyptologists suggest that the rate was 3 stones a minute, and they worked 10-hour workdays. There were (a suggested) 300,000 men on the building site, and a further 150,000 off site. Maybe you should add that to your calculation?

Others suggest that the rate was 0.55 stones a minute.

I hear what you're saying; it must have been quite something to see a pyramid rise at a rate of 180 stones an hour... If the experts can't be sure, how can the rest of us be sure? The point is, that I don't see why it was impossible to reach this rate by humans? Would you rather like the idea of an alien spacecraft (or a whole fleet), moving stones with anti-gravity laser beams? How is that more plausible?

Edit: Wrong word

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Gemwolf]

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:32 PM

And I'm to believe that the ancient Egyptians quarried, transported, and laid a stone perfectly into place every 10.52 minutes, 24 hours per day for twenty years straight, or evey 5.26 minutes, if they worked just 12 hours per day.

nope
you're expected to believe

The accepted values by Egyptologists bear out the following result: 2,400,000 stones used ÷ 20 years ÷ 365 days per year ÷ 10 work hours per day ÷ 60 minutes per hour = 0.55 stones laid per minute.

en.wikipedia.org...

but the claim of 20 years is a little erroneous
the complex itself is believed to have been built over 100 years
this just accounts for the three main pyramids
100 years / 3 = 33 years and 4 months each.
estimating that they would allow more time for the largest pyramid you could conceivably say that they had 40- 45 years to finish it

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Marduk]

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Marduk

And I'm to believe that the ancient Egyptians quarried, transported, and laid a stone perfectly into place every 10.52 minutes, 24 hours per day for twenty years straight, or evey 5.26 minutes, if they worked just 12 hours per day.

nope
you're expected to believe

The accepted values by Egyptologists bear out the following result: 2,400,000 stones used ÷ 20 years ÷ 365 days per year ÷ 10 work hours per day ÷ 60 minutes per hour = 0.55 stones laid per minute.

en.wikipedia.org...

but the claim of 20 years is a little erroneous
the complex itself is believed to have been built over 100 years
this just accounts for the three main pyramids
100 years / 3 = 33 years and 4 months each.
estimating that they would allow more time for the largest pyramid you could conceivably say that they had 40- 45 years to finish it

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Marduk]

If built over a period of 100 years, then bye-bye to the "Tombs and Tombs only" theory then.
And how do we explain that it was still sealed in recorded history, broken into by Mahmout? who found it empty.
Nothing at all inside.
Also how did the passagewqay to the Grand Gallery get sealed? It has to have been done at build - you cannot slide stone down so tight a space without it sticking fast.

It doesn't need ET to have built it though. It was built in 2500BC, 4th dynasty.
What is really interesting is the 5th dynasty work is much less well preserved externally, but internally is where we get the pyramid texts from. Outside is rubble.
Maybe it was done using a method we just have not yet figured out?

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:53 PM
One of the many archaeologists showed on a a show, a corner of the great Pyramid where the outer stones were broken and open. Anyway inside were a mass of boulders, not the carefully quarried, cut moved and placed slabs.

Kinda made me wonder?, is the great pyramid at least, made inside from the same sort of cut and placed stone as what is seen outside, less the chambers, ect..?

Dallas

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:45 AM
But, when? I don't agree with the age of it, and I still have unanswered questions as to how they did some of the things. The number of blocks is currently said to be around 580 000, and the internal ones are roughly hewn and not so tightly fitted together. But my questions are more to do with the design and precision of the finished product. Why be hundreds of times more precise than can be seen with the naked eye? How did they know to make it quake resistant by varying the heights of each tier and widths of blocks? What was it for? I agree that it is no tomb. It is not so much that I think they couldn't do it in Khufu's time, as why did they do it like they did?

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by neil wilkes
If built over a period of 100 years, then bye-bye to the "Tombs and Tombs only" theory then.

He said the entire complex... Think on it this way, Cheops ruled for 50 years and his son for another 50 years. That's a whole lot of years. While I doubt it took 100 years for just the Great Pyramid, it wouldnt surprise me if it was more like 40 instead of 20.

new topics

top topics

0