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.

 

107 Wonders of the Ancient World

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
That is part of my point why do people have such a hard time on numerous occasions with stones no more than 10 tons but on other occasions they are able to move stones over 700 tons.

Because they're idiots?


Something else to keep in mind is that stones arent always pulled by human hand. The Eygptians where well accustomed to using oxen (we see it in their wall paintings).

Though someone more skilled in the use of cattle will have to inform you how much oxen can pull, because if I do a search on it I only get "the power of OS X", haha.


there are certainly plenty of idiots around but why weren't the ancients that moved stones all around the world not just Egypt so stupid?

If over a dozen ancient civilizations could figure it out why can't more evolved modern man figure it out?

I mentioned the posibility of using animals on my site and I also pointed out the difficulty one of the people moving them with animals had. Layard originally tried to use buffalo but they refused to move. So he wound up using men to move his statues.

BTW part of the reason that the number of men used per stone varies is becuase the circumstances varied. The circumstances also varied for the ancients some had to move through deserts, thick forests, rough mountain terrain, uphill etc.

In some cercumstances they had it much tougher than the modern experiments and still they succeeded where modern people failed.




posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
If over a dozen ancient civilizations could figure it out why can't more evolved modern man figure it out?

Well then you got a fundamental flaw in your argument: Man isnt more evolved today. Technology has nothing to do with evolving. Well unless you count genetics.

I mean just because I can answer a question in 3 seconds using Google and an ancient Egyptian would take 3 years doing the same by observation and hard math, does that mean I'm smarter than him?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
If over a dozen ancient civilizations could figure it out why can't more evolved modern man figure it out?

Well then you got a fundamental flaw in your argument: Man isnt more evolved today. Technology has nothing to do with evolving. Well unless you count genetics.

I mean just because I can answer a question in 3 seconds using Google and an ancient Egyptian would take 3 years doing the same by observation and hard math, does that mean I'm smarter than him?


The traditional scientific view is that man is more evoloved and in many ways it is accurate but in others it may not be.

You have a point worth considering but I don't think it is sufficient to explain the mystery.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The traditional scientific view is that man is more evoloved and in many ways it is accurate but in others it may not be

... Excuse me? What "traditional scientific view"? The only scientific view I am aware of is the fact that we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens and our brain has changed little over the last couple of hundred thousand years (let alone the last few thousand). Saying that man is more evolved is blatantly false either way you look at it. Knowledge is not evolution.

But as you said, it doesnt explain the "mystery", no.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte

when the archaeological world has known for over three generations now that the Romans built it using their enormous cranes.

Actualy there isn't a consensus on that. the history channel has mentioned that. They did claim it was the Romans but they didn't seem to believe it was solved. 1 show speculated about them using levers to slowly roll them flipping them over time after time. It didn't sound very convincing. Also they may have dug thouroughly in most of the site but they didn't look under the 300 to 750 ton stones.

Wiegand said he did so. What does bedrock mean to you?

Casting aspersions on legitimately conducted archaeological research by citing some documentary that was shown on the History Channel?

This is just about as hopeless as hopeless gets.

I assume that you didn't try to find any info on the 1904 invistigation by Wiegand then?

Just went with "Digging for the Truth," didya?


Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte
Regarding your "new ideas," exactly what ideas in your post are "new?"

The Ancient Astronaut theory was first speculated on by H.P. Lovecraft in the mid 1920's.

Lovecraft was fiction. But you are right to a point they are not new entirely.


Dude. They are AAAALLL fiction.

Lovecraft was just the first one to admit it. VonDaniken has himself admitted to forging his own evidence, BTW.


Originally posted by zacherystaylorWhat I'm saying is first the official version doesn't add up there are many things that havn't been explained properly.

If there are, I've never seen one of them.


Harte

[edit on 11/4/2008 by Harte]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The traditional scientific view is that man is more evoloved and in many ways it is accurate but in others it may not be

... Excuse me? What "traditional scientific view"? The only scientific view I am aware of is the fact that we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens and our brain has changed little over the last couple of hundred thousand years (let alone the last few thousand). Saying that man is more evolved is blatantly false either way you look at it. Knowledge is not evolution.

But as you said, it doesnt explain the "mystery", no.


Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I should have. evolution is a slow gradual process the physical and mental differences over 5 or 6 thousand years is actualy very small. the bigger difference is the evolution of civilization or social evolution. I believe the traditional scientific view agrees with that statement.

In other words your right.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte

when the archaeological world has known for over three generations now that the Romans built it using their enormous cranes.

Actualy there isn't a consensus on that. the history channel has mentioned that. They did claim it was the Romans but they didn't seem to believe it was solved. 1 show speculated about them using levers to slowly roll them flipping them over time after time. It didn't sound very convincing. Also they may have dug thouroughly in most of the site but they didn't look under the 300 to 750 ton stones.

Wiegand said he did so. What does bedrock mean to you?

Casting aspersions on legitimately conducted archaeological research by citing some documentary that was shown on the History Channel?

This is just about as hopeless as hopeless gets.

I assume that you didn't try to find any info on the 1904 invistigation by Wiegand then?

Just went with "Digging for the Truth," didya?

It wouldn't have been digging for the truth since I only watched 1 episode of that and read his book but it was history channel.

No I didn't get around to Wiegand if you can cite a web source go ahead. I read plenty of archeology books and watched plenty of shows most that were better than digging for the truth.


Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte
Regarding your "new ideas," exactly what ideas in your post are "new?"

The Ancient Astronaut theory was first speculated on by H.P. Lovecraft in the mid 1920's.

Lovecraft was fiction. But you are right to a point they are not new entirely.


Dude. They are AAAALLL fiction.

Lovecraft was just the first one to admit it. VonDaniken has himself admitted to forging his own evidence, BTW.

Von Daniken is flawed enough that he is only worth paying attention to as speculation. He isn't a source I would cite as reliable but if he made a statement that stood on it's own merits then I might mention it. the same goes for Graham Hancock. For example he made a statement about the ramps theoretically used for the pyramids not holding upto the wear and tear of hauling up millions of tons of stone if it was made of sand or mud brick. This is a ligitimate concern no matter who said it. Yet the traditional scholars usualy ignore it. This could be adressed if the ramps were made of stone but that would have meant even more work.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylorWhat I'm saying is first the official version doesn't add up there are many things that havn't been explained properly.

If there are, I've never seen one of them.


Harte

[edit on 11/4/2008 by Harte]


I could easily run off a long list but there are plenty on my website. Moving 700 ton stones over land 400 miles, moving 800 tons of stone every day to meet the alledged 20 year pyramid time frame and much more.

BTW I change the weight of the Baalbek stones to 750 tons.

Haven't put in a section on skeptics yet but I will soon probably with some of your links. It will also include comments about either pseudo scientists or skeptics that decide what is true before they figure it out. trying to be fair although you may not agree.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
moving 800 tons of stone every day to meet the alledged 20 year pyramid time frame

Alledged being the keyword... You can easily halve that number just by varying the years and the weight of the pyramid, neither of which is impossible to say precise. If you go to extremes, lets say that the pyramid weigh 5 million tonnes instead... And Khufu reigned for 60 years (building the pyramid all of them). You're down to 230 tonnes a day.

Hell, maybe there's even a very simple reason why no one seems to have been buried in the Great Pyramid: it wasnt finished when he died because it took far longer than 20 years!



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
moving 800 tons of stone every day to meet the alledged 20 year pyramid time frame

Alledged being the keyword... You can easily halve that number just by varying the years and the weight of the pyramid, neither of which is impossible to say precise. If you go to extremes, lets say that the pyramid weigh 5 million tonnes instead... And Khufu reigned for 60 years (building the pyramid all of them). You're down to 230 tonnes a day.

Hell, maybe there's even a very simple reason why no one seems to have been buried in the Great Pyramid: it wasnt finished when he died because it took far longer than 20 years!


The weight is precise although I'm not sure they can tell if there are large gaps within which could lower the weight to 5 million tons as you say. If they have something similar to sonar they might me able to confirm that. Maybe they already did.

The time period was also precise but there is no reliable record of it. the Manatho king list apparently gives Khufu 65 years.

I have no idea why "experts" like Zahi Hawass insist on the 20 year period. He acts as if it is certain I seriously doubt it.

Some alternate scholars claim it wasn't a tomb at all. There are very few heirloglyphs in it unlike the other tombs and pyramids.

I'm not sure there is solid evidence either way although people on both sides claim there is for their side.

The strongest evidence seems to be a pattern of behavior but it isn't perfect.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
moving 800 tons of stone every day to meet the alledged 20 year pyramid time frame

Alledged being the keyword... You can easily halve that number just by varying the years and the weight of the pyramid, neither of which is impossible to say precise. If you go to extremes, lets say that the pyramid weigh 5 million tonnes instead... And Khufu reigned for 60 years (building the pyramid all of them). You're down to 230 tonnes a day.


The weight is precise although I'm not sure they can tell if there are large gaps within which could lower the weight to 5 million tons as you say.


Then tell us, please, exactly how the "weight is precise?"
There have been updates to the counts of stones in the GP. One study estimates fewer than 750,000.


Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The time period was also precise but there is no reliable record of it. the Manatho king list apparently gives Khufu 65 years.

I have no idea why "experts" like Zahi Hawass insist on the 20 year period. He acts as if it is certain I seriously doubt it.


An engineering consulting firm estimated that the entire project would have taken 15 years, with only about 10 years or so for the main part of the construction. This estimate allowed for, IIRC, about 12,000 total workers with a maximum of, I believe, around 8,000 during the period of major construction.

The rest of the time was for site prep and then hundreds of artisan craftsmen finishing off the surfaces of the exterior casing stones (that are now long gone.)


Originally posted by zacherystaylorSome alternate scholars claim it wasn't a tomb at all. There are very few heirloglyphs in it unlike the other tombs and pyramids.

Hardly any pyramids or temples from that era contain interior decoration of any kind, so the absence of hieroglyphs would be expected.

In fact, it would be an anomaly if any interior murals or writings had been found.

Harte



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Hello everyone ! =)

I've visited this most fascinating site too often now and decided to register to post on these forums - this being my first registered post.

I just thought that I might add in a new twist to why all of these ancient mysteries such as the movement of these large stones have become, well...

MYSTERIES

Mankind, from the Akkadians forward, had composed and compiled libraries of information for thier peoples to retain for and to teach to thier next generations the information they had discovered. I'd like to speculate that those libraries contained information in them that today would baffle us as a "Modern" species because frankly, I can only speculate because those libraries were destroyed by conquering invaders.

One such famous and historically renouned library was destroyed by the Romans when they sacked Alexandria, Egypt.

I'm pretty certain that those libraries contained information that we lost and today are just now rediscovering...



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
moving 800 tons of stone every day to meet the alledged 20 year pyramid time frame

Alledged being the keyword... You can easily halve that number just by varying the years and the weight of the pyramid, neither of which is impossible to say precise. If you go to extremes, lets say that the pyramid weigh 5 million tonnes instead... And Khufu reigned for 60 years (building the pyramid all of them). You're down to 230 tonnes a day.


The weight is precise although I'm not sure they can tell if there are large gaps within which could lower the weight to 5 million tons as you say.


Then tell us, please, exactly how the "weight is precise?"
There have been updates to the counts of stones in the GP. One study estimates fewer than 750,000.

It just means that there is an exact weight whether we can calculate it or not.

If this study is correct which I doubt then it would mean the average weight of the stones is bigger aproximately 7.5 tons each and the construction would be even more difficult.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The time period was also precise but there is no reliable record of it. the Manatho king list apparently gives Khufu 65 years.

I have no idea why "experts" like Zahi Hawass insist on the 20 year period. He acts as if it is certain I seriously doubt it.


An engineering consulting firm estimated that the entire project would have taken 15 years, with only about 10 years or so for the main part of the construction. This estimate allowed for, IIRC, about 12,000 total workers with a maximum of, I believe, around 8,000 during the period of major construction.

The rest of the time was for site prep and then hundreds of artisan craftsmen finishing off the surfaces of the exterior casing stones (that are now long gone.)

This would now invlolve moving about 1,667 tons of stone every day. Making it even more difficult and hard to believe.

Originally posted by Harte


Originally posted by zacherystaylorSome alternate scholars claim it wasn't a tomb at all. There are very few heirloglyphs in it unlike the other tombs and pyramids.

Hardly any pyramids or temples from that era contain interior decoration of any kind, so the absence of hieroglyphs would be expected.

In fact, it would be an anomaly if any interior murals or writings had been found.

Harte


This is what was found therefore it is what should be there but why? How?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
Hello everyone ! =)

I've visited this most fascinating site too often now and decided to register to post on these forums - this being my first registered post.

I just thought that I might add in a new twist to why all of these ancient mysteries such as the movement of these large stones have become, well...

MYSTERIES

Mankind, from the Akkadians forward, had composed and compiled libraries of information for thier peoples to retain for and to teach to thier next generations the information they had discovered. I'd like to speculate that those libraries contained information in them that today would baffle us as a "Modern" species because frankly, I can only speculate because those libraries were destroyed by conquering invaders.

One such famous and historically renouned library was destroyed by the Romans when they sacked Alexandria, Egypt.

I'm pretty certain that those libraries contained information that we lost and today are just now rediscovering...


That library was actualy destroyed several times for what it is worth. Constant censorship and war has seriously stunted social evolution and the education of the world.

That library and others may have contained information to solve this mystery but we'll never know now.

The best that can be done now is look at what is left including the heilogryphs that are hard to decipher and translate.

The best source of Egyptian history may be Dier el Medina for what it is worth but that doesn't cover the period of Khufu and it is full of superstition. It does cover the period of Seti I through most of the Ramses. However it doesn't seem to explain how they moved the colossal statues weighing upto at least 700 tons.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
moving 800 tons of stone every day to meet the alledged 20 year pyramid time frame

Alledged being the keyword... You can easily halve that number just by varying the years and the weight of the pyramid, neither of which is impossible to say precise. If you go to extremes, lets say that the pyramid weigh 5 million tonnes instead... And Khufu reigned for 60 years (building the pyramid all of them). You're down to 230 tonnes a day.


The weight is precise although I'm not sure they can tell if there are large gaps within which could lower the weight to 5 million tons as you say.


Then tell us, please, exactly how the "weight is precise?"
There have been updates to the counts of stones in the GP. One study estimates fewer than 750,000.

It just means that there is an exact weight whether we can calculate it or not.


So, you're claiming that the Great Pyramid has some exact weight?
I'll go along with that. I mean, I doubt that the weight of the G.P. fluctuates with time!


Originally posted by zacherystaylor
If this study is correct which I doubt then it would mean the average weight of the stones is bigger aproximately 7.5 tons each and the construction would be even more difficult.


Given that nobody knows how much the Great Pyramid weighs, I don't see how you arrived at an average weight per stone.

Inspection of the stones that can be observed indicates a range between one and three tons each for the ordinary blocks making up the bulk of the pyramid. This does not hold true for the (now missing) casing stones and the dressed stones that line interior walls and chambers.

Of course, if you say "7.5 tons," that's just a way for you to make the job harder than it was. Sort of feeds your delusion, I'd say.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The time period was also precise but there is no reliable record of it. the Manatho king list apparently gives Khufu 65 years.

I have no idea why "experts" like Zahi Hawass insist on the 20 year period. He acts as if it is certain I seriously doubt it.


An engineering consulting firm estimated that the entire project would have taken 15 years, with only about 10 years or so for the main part of the construction. This estimate allowed for, IIRC, about 12,000 total workers with a maximum of, I believe, around 8,000 during the period of major construction.

The rest of the time was for site prep and then hundreds of artisan craftsmen finishing off the surfaces of the exterior casing stones (that are now long gone.)

This would now invlolve moving about 1,667 tons of stone every day. Making it even more difficult and hard to believe.

Again, youi've decided to make up numbers out of thin air to make your ideas seem a little more plausible.

Others might buy it, but thinking individuals must realize that, since you know neither the stone count nor the overall weight, you cannot possibly estimate how many tons of stone must have been moved in a day.


Originally posted by zacherystaylor

Originally posted by Harte


Originally posted by zacherystaylorSome alternate scholars claim it wasn't a tomb at all. There are very few heirloglyphs in it unlike the other tombs and pyramids.

Hardly any pyramids or temples from that era contain interior decoration of any kind, so the absence of hieroglyphs would be expected.

In fact, it would be an anomaly if any interior murals or writings had been found.

Harte


This is what was found therefore it is what should be there but why? How?

Why? How?

The kings of that era didn't decorate the interior of their tombs with murals and hieroglyphics.

Why or how is beside the point. They didn't do it anywhere else so not finding such decor inside the Great Pyramid is, in fact, to be expected. In other words, the exact opposite of anomalous.

Harte



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Given that nobody knows how much the Great Pyramid weighs, I don't see how you arrived at an average weight per stone.

Inspection of the stones that can be observed indicates a range between one and three tons each for the ordinary blocks making up the bulk of the pyramid. This does not hold true for the (now missing) casing stones and the dressed stones that line interior walls and chambers.

Of course, if you say "7.5 tons," that's just a way for you to make the job harder than it was. Sort of feeds your delusion, I'd say.



Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by zacherystaylor

This would now invlolve moving about 1,667 tons of stone every day. Making it even more difficult and hard to believe.

Again, youi've decided to make up numbers out of thin air to make your ideas seem a little more plausible.

Others might buy it, but thinking individuals must realize that, since you know neither the stone count nor the overall weight, you cannot possibly estimate how many tons of stone must have been moved in a day.


My estimates are based on the official version adjusted by your alledged new findings. the official estimate for the average stone is 2.5 tons. you estimated there are only a third of the total number of stones therefore I tripled the estimate. You cut the time frame by five years so I increased the amount of stone that had to be moved per day. You did only part of the math so I fixed it.

BTW moving so much stone in such a short time almost certainly involves an enormous amount of coersion, indoctrination and tyrany. Any other explanation would be even more bizzarre.

Originally posted by Harte
The kings of that era didn't decorate the interior of their tombs with murals and hieroglyphics.

Why or how is beside the point. They didn't do it anywhere else so not finding such decor inside the Great Pyramid is, in fact, to be expected. In other words, the exact opposite of anomalous.

Why or how isn't besides the point since it may help explain what happened.

Interpreting it properly is much harder so people resort to speculation since the facts are insufficient to come to hard conclusions but some don't admit it is speculation.

The reason and the method could tell us a lot if we knew for sure what they were.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Mate, do you just pick fights to prove you have some knowledge?.. or just want to argue with anyone?

The volume of a pyramid is easily calculated as is the average density/weight of the materials easily calculated, to estimate tonnage

Then an educated guess, based on observed average size, arrives at number of blocks.

Most of the mainstream traditional methods guessed!... for describing the process of building make the task all the more astounding.... even over 30 yrs! ......given the number of support workers, quarriers, transporters builders etc etc required.

I can help you with rudimentary math and provide additional information, if if would help you grasp that?!



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
My estimates are based on the official version adjusted by your alledged new findings. the official estimate for the average stone is 2.5 tons. you estimated there are only a third of the total number of stones therefore I tripled the estimate. You cut the time frame by five years so I increased the amount of stone that had to be moved per day. You did only part of the math so I fixed it.


Actually, your estimate is based on a stone count that today is known to be erroneous.

Inspection of interior spaces revealed in areas damaged by dynamite in the early days of exploration show that there are large voids in the pyramid. Large, irregular, voids that were not meant as chambers and cannot be seen without damaging more of the pyramid.

There is no "official" estimate for the number of stones in the Great Pyramid. So your numbers are meaningless.

What you have done is find a general estimate for the weight of the GP by multiplying your erroneous number of blocks by the average weight per block.

On discovery that your block count was wrong, you nevertheless maintained the erroneous weight calculation (derived, remember, from an erroneous block count) and substututed the estimate I gave you into your calculations.

Meaningless, IOW.


Originally posted by Has2b
reply to post by Harte
 


Mate, do you just pick fights to prove you have some knowledge?.. or just want to argue with anyone?

The volume of a pyramid is easily calculated as is the average density/weight of the materials easily calculated, to estimate tonnage


This fact is obvious. What is also obvious is that one must be dealing with a solid object if one wishes to arrive at a reasonable estimate using this method.

However, what is also obvious is that the GP is not a solid object and the extent of voids between walls in the GP is completely and utterly unknown.

So, this method cannot be used to arrive at any reasonable estimate.


Originally posted by Has2bMost of the mainstream traditional methods guessed!... for describing the process of building make the task all the more astounding.... even over 30 yrs! ......given the number of support workers, quarriers, transporters builders etc etc required.

I can help you with rudimentary math and provide additional information, if if would help you grasp that?!



LOL.

Yes, all of science, even physics, is theoretical.

No, being a math teacher myself, I don't think I need your help.

Re: your question about whether I have some knowledge, the answer is yes. Maybe if you use the search function to recall some of my posts you'll arrive at that conclusion.

I only argue this point because the idea that humans couldn't build the GP is the basis for the argument that there must have been some unknown civilization - possibly alien - to account for the Egyptian pyramids.

The very idea is ludicrous.

Harte



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



LOL

You are nit picking! As you know there has been several expeditions/efforts to discover unknown voids and chambers all without significant discovery so far. french found some sand, Japanese a few unproven anololies, etc

Even if the voids represent (say 25% volume) this adds to complexity and time taken! As easier to lay blocks than build precise structurally sound load baring chambers that allow for engineering soundness that has preserved the structure in the face of elements and earthquakes for millenia

AS for your claim as rediculous. Without evidence of your "hollow pyramid" concept you are being as equally subjective.

The poster was merely making an illustrative estimate, based on some commonly accepted knowns (so far)

Anyway this seems to have derailed the OP's intention somewhat. I find your challenges to almost every thread I read here interesting , and just point out to you that your seemingly arrogant dismissmal of others thoughts are based on your own flimsy opinions!



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Actually, your estimate is based on a stone count that today is known to be erroneous.

Inspection of interior spaces revealed in areas damaged by dynamite in the early days of exploration show that there are large voids in the pyramid. Large, irregular, voids that were not meant as chambers and cannot be seen without damaging more of the pyramid.

There is no "official" estimate for the number of stones in the Great Pyramid. So your numbers are meaningless.

What you have done is find a general estimate for the weight of the GP by multiplying your erroneous number of blocks by the average weight per block.

On discovery that your block count was wrong, you nevertheless maintained the erroneous weight calculation (derived, remember, from an erroneous block count) and substututed the estimate I gave you into your calculations.

Meaningless, IOW.

I cited sources on my web site you did not. You mearly mad statements that contradicted the most common assumptions based partly on new studys. I didn't doubt that new studies were done even though you didn't cite sources just made the best of what information you provided.

Originally posted by Harte


Originally posted by Has2b
reply to post by Harte
 


Mate, do you just pick fights to prove you have some knowledge?.. or just want to argue with anyone?

The volume of a pyramid is easily calculated as is the average density/weight of the materials easily calculated, to estimate tonnage


This fact is obvious. What is also obvious is that one must be dealing with a solid object if one wishes to arrive at a reasonable estimate using this method.

However, what is also obvious is that the GP is not a solid object and the extent of voids between walls in the GP is completely and utterly unknown.

So, this method cannot be used to arrive at any reasonable estimate.


Originally posted by Has2bMost of the mainstream traditional methods guessed!... for describing the process of building make the task all the more astounding.... even over 30 yrs! ......given the number of support workers, quarriers, transporters builders etc etc required.

I can help you with rudimentary math and provide additional information, if if would help you grasp that?!



LOL.

Yes, all of science, even physics, is theoretical.

No, being a math teacher myself, I don't think I need your help.

Re: your question about whether I have some knowledge, the answer is yes. Maybe if you use the search function to recall some of my posts you'll arrive at that conclusion.

I only argue this point because the idea that humans couldn't build the GP is the basis for the argument that there must have been some unknown civilization - possibly alien - to account for the Egyptian pyramids.

The very idea is ludicrous.

Harte


If your a math teacher you must be familar with the phrase "show the work".

When I was a kid math teachers always told me to do that.

I showed a lot of work mostly from other sources including many reputable traditional scholars. Yes there are alternate scholars cited on my site which can be rediculed with justification but there is also a disclaimer and advice to use good discretion.

You showed no work.

You also focused on a very small prtion of the many wonders of the world.

The biggest hard conclusion I came up with is that the mystery isn't solved and then I admited beyond that it was partly speculation.

Belive what you will your going to anyway.

I believe it is a good idea to figure out what is true then choose what to believe not the other way around.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join