Any "other" ideas on the pyramids??

Sorry for posting congruently, but I'd like to add something about Egyptian art that may lend some credence to my earlier idea, that the Egyptians may not have recorded all the steps in their drawings.

Egyptian wall art, is 2 dimensional. It may be possible that some things were just not easily representable with 2d art—so the 'taggers' and others whom made the drawings, may not have even tried. Or had any idea how to represent them.

I can't quickly find the distance from the Nile, that Giza is, but could it be possible they ran lines attached to buckets, that were placed in the river, to use the current to help counter-weight the blocks? That would be difficult to represent in a wall drawing. But not difficult to achieve, granting the distance to the river was managable.

My thoughts on the counterweight theory anyway.

you might want to consider that every time you stop the block and pull up the counterweight you are doing exactly the same amount of work you would be doing if the hole and counterweight weren't there in the first place
i.e. you have a 100ft hole and use it 4 times to pull the block up
100 x 4 - 400ft
so it doesnt make any difference the size of the hole

Hole less than the height of the pyramid, for counter-weighting blocks up the side.

err ok
so now you need a hole as wide as it is deep to fit your mechanism inside
and the Giza plateau is made from bedrock
the Giza plateau has been analysed with ground sonar
guess what they didn't find

Only one idiot on the thread, and noone has had to show it,

yeah you're doing a great job so far

I disagree. Actually your wrong. He's saying that compared to reality, science is prmitive and childlike

read it

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

the last line refers to science
not reality
otherwise he wouldn't have said "and yet"

the idiot does it well enough on his own.

I disagree
so far you've proven you arent doing very well at all

One thing I meant to add in my previous post was the ropes involved in moving the large pyramidal blocks would be very large.

Ropes of the era were constructed from reeds woven together?
Was hemp available to th pyramid builders?

One small example of rope size is the mooring lines used to hold large modern aircraft carriers to a dock.
3' in diameter and made of nylon.

As a comparison, modern three strand 3/8" manilla rope has a breaking strength of 1220#.
Three strand nylon 3/8" rope has a breaking strength of 3300#.

If a manilla or woven reed rope was used, it was probably used in multiples.
Better that than perhaps a 6'-9' or so diameter rope that would be very difficult to handle it's own self.

Originally posted by Marduk

My thoughts on the counterweight theory anyway.

you might want to consider that every time you stop the block and pull up the counterweight you are doing exactly the same amount of work you would be doing if the hole and counterweight weren't there in the first place
i.e. you have a 100ft hole and use it 4 times to pull the block up
100 x 4 - 400ft
so it doesnt make any difference the size of the hole

Actually the gearing allows the hole to be shallower, the gears allow the distance of the fall, to be less the distance of the rise. Only need to do it once. The only work involved, is building the mechanism, and shoveling sand.

err ok
so now you need a hole as wide as it is deep to fit your mechanism inside
and the Giza plateau is made from bedrock
the Giza plateau has been analysed with ground sonar
guess what they didn't find

Or the gearing was above ground. Same mistake I made with you, I was looking at the placement of blocks to be linear. The hole only needed to be as wide as the bucket used for collecting the sand.

Only one idiot on the thread, and noone has had to show it,

yeah you're doing a great job so far

You may not think so, but that was not clever.

I disagree. Actually your wrong. He's saying that compared to reality, science is prmitive and childlike

read it

Uh yah, here you go again, "..all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike --..." You read it.

the last line refers to science
not reality
otherwise he wouldn't have said "and yet"

Yah, he didn't say 'and yet', he jsut said 'yet'. So In the first sentence he says when compared to reality, science is primitive and childlike. then in the second sentence he says, in my rewording; that even though science is childlike and primitive, we have nothing better.

edit: To put it more plainly, Einstein didn't subscribe to science as the, be all/end all, authority of the universe.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by nextguyinline]

Or the gearing was above ground. Same mistake I made with you, I was looking at the placement of blocks to be linear. The hole only needed to be as wide as the bucket used for collecting the sand.

there would still need to be a hole dug into the bedrock
and there simply isn't one

Uh yah, here you go again, "..all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike --..." You read it.

Ok so i read it with you hows that

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

One thing I have learned in a long life (speaking about himself)
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike (speaking from a position of a 1950s physicist)
and yet it is the most precious thing we have. (referring to science)
he is not saying that reality is the only thing we have
if that had been the case he wouldn't have bothered to mention science at all and he wouldn't have needed to say "and yet"
he would have ended with "primitive and childlike -- it is the most precious thing we have. "

this is a real no brainer
tell me
do you have trouble understanding the words of intelligent people ?
like you do understanding physics, practical engineering and egyptology ?
if theres anything you don't understand ask for an explanation and I would be happy to tell you
attacking me is clearly getting you nowhere




[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]

I never said it was refering to reality. I tried to make it simpler for you, by giving an analogy. Science = chemistry set / psuedoscience, faith and others = lincoln logs.

Chemistry sets are far from perfect, or all encompassing, but it is the best toy.

Your not getting away from this by adding 'a 50's scientist' lol. I'll repeat. Einstein did not put all his stock into the sciences, when it came to what tools are necessary for understading the universe we live in. He felt it was the best tool available at the time, and so that's where he put most of his energy.

You Marduk, are not on Einsteins level. No matter how much you'd like to think so.

theres also that account of Herodotus who was present in egypt at a time that pyramids were still being built and he described exactly how they managed it
perhaps you should read it
here it is

Till the death of Rhampsinitus, the priests said, Egypt was excellently governed, and flourished greatly; but after him Cheops succeeded to the throne, and plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one and all, in his service. Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others received the blocks after they had been conveyed in boats across the river, and drew them to the range of hills called the Libyan. A hundred thousand men laboured constantly, and were relieved every three months by a fresh lot. It took ten years' oppression of the people to make the causeway for the conveyance of the stones, a work not much inferior, in my judgment, to the pyramid itself. This causeway is five furlongs in length, ten fathoms wide, and in height, at the highest part, eight fathoms. It is built of polished stone, and is covered with carvings of animals. To make it took ten years, as I said - or rather to make the causeway, the works on the mound where the pyramid stands, and the underground chambers, which Cheops intended as vaults for his own use: these last were built on a sort of island, surrounded by water introduced from the Nile by a canal. The pyramid itself was twenty years in building. It is a square, eight hundred feet each way, and the height the same, built entirely of polished stone, fitted together with the utmost care. The stones of which it is composed are none of them less than thirty feet in length.
This is how the pyramid was made: like a set of stairs, which some call battlements and some altar steps. When they had first made this base, they then lifted the remaining stones with levers [lit. machines] made of short timbers, lifting them from the ground to the first tier of steps, and, as soon as the stone was raised upon this, it was placed on another lever, which stood on the first tier, and from there it was dragged up to the second tier and on to another lever. As many as there were the tiers, so many were the levers; or it may have been that they transferred the same lever, if they were easily handleable, to each tier in turn, once they had got the stone out of it. I have offered these two different stories of how they did it, for both ways were told me. [History, 2.125]

You Marduk, are not on Einsteins level. No matter how much you'd like to think so.

I agree completely
he knew nothing of history or egyptology
you apparently are having difficulty understanding him when he is speaking in plain english and you also know nothing of egyptology or history
what level does that put you on


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]

Not a word in there about how the blocks made it to the second level and higher on the Pyramids. Got any quotes that include any of that information?

Keep trying Marduk, your struggling to discredit me. Another thing, get off the premise that me or anyone else here, is saying that these ideas ARE what happened. It's only you who thinks that way.

Sadly, and kinda satisfying, you are not understanding what he what saying.

Any more rubuttals to my counter-weight IDEA?

[edit on 18-1-2007 by nextguyinline]

Not a word in there about how the blocks made it to the second level and higher on the Pyramids

okay then
so now youre having trouble understanding the words of Herodotus when they have been translated into english
if you in fact read the quote I posted instead of not reading it and immediately criticising it you will see that Herodotus was told of two methods of raising the stones which he related
1) by using a ramp
2) by using wooden levers

how did you miss that
are you here just to debunk anything you hear

Keep trying Marduk, your struggling to discredit me. Another thing, get off the premise that me or anyone else here, is saying that these ideas ARE what happened. It's only you who thinks that way.

so now youre presuming that you can speak for the other posters as well
listen buddy
your posts are ignorant
get over yourself


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]

Yes, I missed it. Guess what, sorry again. It's easy to do really. Say sorry when you've made a mistake.

Again, I am not saying that levers and planks were not used.

You get over yourself, and apologize for misreading Einstein, and hastily rebutting my counter-weight idea.

BTW, I wasn't trying to debunk Herodotusl My question was legit, and sincere, because I only read the first paragraph. You see, I'm ok with learning stuff, I have no experience with Egyptian documents. You don't seem to want to learn, only force-feed your opinions as fact, to the rest of us, with callausness,vitriol and humiliation.

Oh yeah, Herodotus was told these things. He was hardly an eyewitness.


[edit on 18-1-2007 by nextguyinline]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by nextguyinline]

You get over yourself, and apologize for misreading Einstein, and hastily rebutting my counter-weight idea.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Albert Einstein

You don't seem to want to learn

I learn from Egyptologists and Egyptians and where possible Egyptian Egyptologists
not pseudoscienctific speculators
thats not learning
thats burying your head in the sand
like i said with my comment about a mathemetician
you need to learn how to walk before you can run
well you can try running if you like but as you soon find out
you fall over a lot


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Marduk]

Wow, have I really not been that clear? I NEVER SAID he was referring to reality. He only compared the sciences to it.

Sheese, give up.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Wow, have I really not been that clear? I NEVER SAID he was referring to reality. He only compared the sciences to it.

Sheese, give up.

you said that he was saying reality was all we had
clearly as I have proven now on three seperate occaisons he was in fact saying that science is all we have
about time you started using it eh
I'd also brush up on your english comprehension while youre at it

also your ability to post a witty retort needs some help

in my rewording; that even though science is childlike and primitive, we have nothing better.

I never said it was refering to reality. I tried to make it simpler for you, by giving an analogy. Science = chemistry set / psuedoscience, faith and others = lincoln logs.

Any more snide remarks?

edit: your using my points, as your own, to continue to try and belittle me.

edit2: I won't be responding to you personaly in this thread any longer. I just realised that I've allowed myself to become complicit in your 2nd derailment of this OP's threads. So any more humiliating remarks from you, should please come via u2u. Thanks.
[edit on 18-1-2007 by nextguyinline]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by nextguyinline]

Keep it civil, folks.

over inflated ego's can't take the hit and admit if they would be better of seeing things from a different perspective

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
-- Albert Einstein



einstein says that compared with reality, science is primitive and childlike but yet it is the most precious thing we have which means.......drum roll............... thanks M...................
the best science we have is primitive and childlike compared with reality and yet we hold on to it for dear life to keep our fragile beleif systems afloat.... almost like a survival mechanism

take that to skunk works





[edit on 18-1-2007 by cpdaman]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by cpdaman]

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Egyptian wall art, is 2 dimensional. It may be possible that some things were just not easily representable with 2d art—so the 'taggers' and others whom made the drawings, may not have even tried. Or had any idea how to represent them.

The artists were professionals. That's just the style that they all liked. Just like Chinese art and Japanese art and every other kind of art round.

I can't quickly find the distance from the Nile, that Giza is, but could it be possible they ran lines attached to buckets, that were placed in the river, to use the current to help counter-weight the blocks? That would be difficult to represent in a wall drawing. But not difficult to achieve, granting the distance to the river was managable.

That doesn't seem likely. And why go to all that trouble and risk breaking ropes and all that when they could just haul it out by oxen a dozen times faster.

That's not the style they liked. It's the only style they knew.

I was thinking of the river being used to hoist the blocks up the pyramid to be placed, not to bring them from the quarries. Most likely oxen were used for almost all of the hard labor, but IMO it's worth pondering if it cost less in terms of feeding the oxen, caring for them, and there not known for their willingness to follow orders. "Stubborn as an Ox"

The river gives unending force. I think it's plausible the Egyptians may have harnessed it as a supplement to Oxen and men.

I was thinking of the river being used to hoist the blocks up the pyramid to be placed, not to bring them from the quarries.

as we have already seen you know next to nothing about ancient egypt so the fact that you are thinking about it is no replacement for actually learning

but IMO it's worth pondering if it cost less in terms of feeding the oxen, caring for them, and there not known for their willingness to follow orders

they don't look like they have a problem in this picture from Neferperet's tablet at Tura

had you looked into it the description "as stubborn as an ox is only applicable to untrained animals. these Oxen were very well trained to the point they would work in teams and obey vocal commands

The river gives unending force. I think it's plausible the Egyptians may have harnessed it as a supplement to Oxen and men.

what I don't understand about you is why you would even bother to think about these no brainers when the facts are already well known
there is no way that the river was utilised in the fashion you describe
Egyptian rope was made from water reeds or date palms and has never been reported as being found at lengths in excess of five miles
which is how long it would need to be to reach the river
the weight of such a rope would in fact be more than the block you were trying to move with it

are we learning yet ?

But there are a LOT of pyramids in the worlds.

There are also a LOT of emulators.

No one is saying 'Egyptians' didn't build any pyramids... (Hey I built one three minutes ago with some sand in my greenhouse. Quiet satisfying. ).

I'm saying the 'Egyptians' did NOT build the Great Pyramid. (You'll have to fill me in on your documentation for which 'Egyptian' build the Great Pyramid. )

Being a Egyptiologist, surely you can see the difference.

With regards to the 'effect' generated by the Great Pyramid... it's widely documented.

But it's not like a force field (or laser beam ) that would keep you from flying near it...

It's more like you magnetic based instruments don't work as advertised.