Why are the pyramids built with the sized stones that they are?

TheEthicalSkeptic

OccamsRazor04
No. Since all you did was post opinions without any facts, not much more to say. I already posted a source that proves it was possible, and with far fewer people than was claimed was used.

Yes, I forgot that I was supposed to recognize you as a source of authority on ancient building techniques. I skipped that chapter in grad school.

Hilarious that you understand the point and totally miss it. The point is you made yourself the authority, when you aren't. I posted a source from an ACTUAL authority.

i was under the impression the stones where "cast" onsite with molds ,
thats why the joints are so tight ,

easier to carry water and
plaster then 2 ton elements ,

reply to post by zerbot565


The one of many "theories" that try to explain the construction of the pyramids. The problem with that theory is all the stones are not identical in shape or size. Some weight more some less. They can certainly have made more than one mold, but what ever they used to shape these "poured stones" would have a tell tell sign of imperfections and impressions in the molding frame used which would appear as a common signature on all the stones.

If it was proven they did cast these stones, it still wouldn't make the stone any lighter, 2.5 tons is 2.5 tons. They still have to elevate these stones and move them into position. You can only get so many slaves around one stone to lift it, and even than, lifting it a foot above the ground would be monumental and excruciating to say the least. To put it in perspective. a car weighs approximately a ton, (ever watch a video clip of rioters trying to push a car over onto its side?) It takes a lot of manpower just to rock the car onto its side, not to mention they're not "lifting it" off the ground, but just pushing it over. Show me a video of people lifting a small bus over their heads and setting it on a 4ft ledge and than maybe you might have me thinking it's a possibility.

The physical evidence just doesn't support it.

reply to post by WeRpeons


Why do you ignore my post where I proved it was possible? Don't like facts?

reply to post by WeRpeons


Interesting posts here from folks that know little about pyramid construction techniques. Did you know thousands of workers died constructing failed pyramids? the size of the stone came about from many different sizes of test sites being constructed and failing. a few pyramids out there exist today which should of fallen down but due to stone density haven't. They really did do trial and error in a very big way back then. what didn't kill your entire workforce was good. No space aliens, No God like creature just good old fashioned trial by death till you get things right. Part of history historians don't want us to read about. Keep it a wonder and people will pay good money to come see it.

What's so baffling about it?

Essentially, the pyramids were built by piling one stone on top of another. It was a little more complicated than that because of the size of the pile, but not much.

reply to post by Astyanax


What's so baffling? The average stone weighed 2.5 tons, some weighed 15 tons. The largest of the stones were made out of granite and weighed 25 - 85 tons! These were not just "stones."

I've never driven by a construction sight today and watched construction workers lifting by hand a 2 ton slab of concrete let alone just propping them up.

The over 2 million stones used to create the pyramids would have taken decades to build. That's not even taking into consideration the planning and the coordination of the work force. The life span of an Eqyptian back than was much shorter than today's, averaging 20 - 30 years. Reaching the age of 40 would have been a blessing.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Because they're not facts but theories.

reply to post by WeRpeons


There are plenty of explanations, easily accessible on the Web, to show how it was done.

Numerous experiments have been conducted to show it could be done.

If, in spite of this, you have evidence that demonstrates it was impossible to build an Egyptian pyramid using pre-Industrial-Age technology, please post it. Arguments from personal incredulity cut no more ice with me than faith-based ones do.

WeRpeons
The pyramids are 14 stories high. Think about that aspect alone.

A friend of mine is a contractor and visited Egypt and the pyramids with his wife. When he returned, the first thing he said to me was,"nobody can tell me those pyramids were built by humans back in 3000 BC. To move those mammoth stones which weighed an average of 2.5 tons and lifting them just 2 stories would be a feat at today's technological standards!"He went on to say that it boggled his mind seeing how tight the joints were and how over 2 million stones were cut and lifted to such heights.

For all the theories that have tried to explain how these pyramids were built, doesn't it say something to the fact that even the brightest engineering minds can't agree on how they were built. That speaks volumes.

I don't know how they were built. I do know that 2.5 tons is not really that much weight at today's technological standards. We can lift 6803 tons with the biggest crane at the moment. Send your friend down to the docs An empty 40' shipping container weighs 9000-8000 lbs. Filled with chinese junk up to around 60,000 lbs.

OccamsRazor04

TheEthicalSkeptic

OccamsRazor04
No. Since all you did was post opinions without any facts, not much more to say. I already posted a source that proves it was possible, and with far fewer people than was claimed was used.

Yes, I forgot that I was supposed to recognize you as a source of authority on ancient building techniques. I skipped that chapter in grad school.

Hilarious that you understand the point and totally miss it. The point is you made yourself the authority, when you aren't. I posted a source from an ACTUAL authority.

I see 8 snide comments insulting the OP, me and anyone else who dares set outside your lines of propaganda, and then a laughable aged reference to Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass. Set aside the fact that neither of these gentlemen are fully credible, due to shady business dealings uncovered by the new government.

But neither one knows the first thing about construction and work processes; nor do they employ the scientific method to develop conclusions. They are political hacks. You just cited them as proof. That is naive and ridiculous.

I know construction and work processes. You don't. Does every thread and every post have to be a pseudo-skeptic incompetent set of insults to all those around you?

supermarket2012

The stones are much BIGGER than one would have assumed would be used for construction of such pyramid.

One way to look at it is to determine what was easier for them. Moving stones or cutting stones? Smaller stones would mean many more that would need to be cut. I think the stones are exactly the right size as to what they could move efficiently and reduce the numbers needed to be cut.

I thought it established that the stones where not cut but a form on concrete. If I recollect this has been verified by scienitsts.

WeRpeons

i was under the impression the stones where "cast" onsite with molds ,
thats why the joints are so tight ,easier to carry water and
plaster then 2 ton elements ,

reply to post by zerbot565

 

The one of many "theories" that try to explain the construction of the pyramids. The problem with that theory is all the stones are not identical in shape or size. Some weight more some less. They can certainly have made more than one mold, but what ever they used to shape these "poured stones" would have a tell tell sign of imperfections and impressions in the molding frame used which would appear as a common signature on all the stones.

Agreed WeR. Excellent point. The 'cast' theory just is not supported by the evidence.

The ability to assemble long chain chemical reactions which form a concretion of limestone is not the same as the homologous bravais which ground pressure and time creates out of a calcite. We cannot replicate that bravais on a large scale. So a concreted stone is not the same thing as a limestone formed in the earth, having a Moh's hardness rating of 3 to 4. Plus, these stones are lain in a methodical pattern called 'fieldstone stacking.' That is, the superintendent selected and placed the stones, making do with what he had arriving from the supply chain at any given time. New England farmers did this with the stone fences and homes they used to build. It is a skilled tradecraft to do fieldstone assembly.

Were these stones 'poured' they would not exhibit the homologous hardness of limestone, and they would be made in standardized sizes, probably less than 12 total mold sizes available, with 1 or 2 standard mold sizes representing 80% of the stone count or more. To mold this dissarray of sizing would not make any sense.

reply to post by staple


Not saying lifting 2.5 tons would be that difficult using today's technology, but the amount of heavy duty equipment like huge cranes would be needed today to lift such weight. It's not a simple task of using a dolly to move that kind of weight today.

reply to post by Astyanax


There will always be some who say the experiments proved how they constructed the pyramids, there will be others who will say the experiments did not go far enough to prove it. I'm not aware of any experiment that hoisted a 50 lb block of granite 12 stories in the air let along 14.

If, in spite of this, you have evidence that demonstrates it was impossible to build an Egyptian pyramid using pre-Industrial-Age technology, please post it. Arguments from personal incredulity cut no more ice with me than faith-based ones do.

reply to post by Astyanax


I never said I had any evidence, I'm saying the so called "evidence" has been questioned by engineers, physicists and scientists. Not all of them agree that the methods used to try to duplicate the feat was actually possible.

Were these stones 'poured' they would not exhibit the homologous hardness of limestone,

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


That's also a good point. Anything that is molded doesn't have the hardness and becomes brittle. To hold the massive weight of these stoned piled on top of each other, would disintegrate the lower level stones from the massive load.

Xtrozero

supermarket2012

The stones are much BIGGER than one would have assumed would be used for construction of such pyramid.

One way to look at it is to determine what was easier for them. Moving stones or cutting stones? Smaller stones would mean many more that would need to be cut. I think the stones are exactly the right size as to what they could move efficiently and reduce the numbers needed to be cut.

You are so smart.

I didn't really think of that. I suppose a lot more work would have gone into cutting them. Then again, I'm FAR from an expert (more like a child than an expert, hehe) on the subject, so I'm not sure what would have taken more energy/effort.

It seems like even though cutting the stones in half would have taken much, much more time, wouldn't it also have been far easier to transport them, and then lift them on each other to construct the pyramid?

I hate to sound so stupid, but 1) How DID they cut the stones back then, and 2) How did they transport them back then?