The pyramid and other structures how they worked

originally posted by: Byrd

It fits if they had light.

But torches would be impractical. There is simply too much real estate down there. You'd be hauling firewood all day long.

They're also rather impractical to wander around in or use. Why trot out to the middle of a cemetery (and note that the Egyptians did NOT like wandering around in the dark... that's when the demons came out) to hold a meeting when they could simply use one of the large convenient temples right there in a major city? There were areas of the temples that were secured and where nobody but the king and the high priest of that area could enter.

Less danger of being eaten by demons (the belief was that packs of demons roamed the dark. (see this paper for a syllabus about demons in Ancient Egypt )

Also... they didn't have clear glass back then. Nobody had clear glass until around 100 AD (en.wikipedia.org...)

They had the ability to carve diorite into vases. If you can carve diorite into a vase, then you probably carve clear crystal into the same shape.

www.pinterest.co.uk...

Or go out into the Sahara and find some of the bits of glass that are out there, and carve those into the shape you want.

en.wikipedia.org...



The role the glass in a lightbulb plays is that it prevents the overheated metal or graphite from combusting when it is exposed to oxygen in the air. As light can pass through it, the actual clearness of the glass doesn't really matter very much.

It's fine if it's not optical grade, or has impurities or colors. So long as it isn't letting air through.

so, the infamous dendera lights again.
really? get a life.
this has been debunked ages ago.

for the technical superstition lovers..

THERE IS EGYTIAN TEXT ABOVE THE DEPICTIONS YOU CAN READ.

no bulbs ANYWHERE.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: anti72

The American Indians had a flat bit of quartz rock with washboard-like ridges on it and then rubbed another bit across the ridges and it made light, called Triboluminescence. Who is to say if the quartz was electrified you don't get the same effect.It didnt need to be a lightbulb per se.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: anti72

The American Indians had a flat bit of quartz rock with washboard-like ridges on it and then rubbed another bit across the ridges and it made light, called Triboluminescence. Who is to say if the quartz was electrified you don't get the same effect.It didnt need to be a lightbulb per se.

Those quartz illuminations wouldn't be constant, though, would they? Like biting onto a breath mint, there's a quick flash but then it goes away once the pressure is released or the crystals break. I don't think maintaining pressure will keep the light going.

Continual pressure won't, but continuous vibration might. Putting it under pressure, releasing the pressure, and then putting it under pressure again.

So if it were incorporated into a structure that is sonically resonant? And of course, one the favorite activities of tour groups that are permitted to enter the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid is to sit in there and hum, and feel the vibration from it.


The Dendera Bulb, unfortunately, isn't depicting that type of light generation.

originally posted by: anti72
so, the infamous dendera lights again.
really? get a life.
this has been debunked ages ago.

for the technical superstition lovers..

THERE IS EGYTIAN TEXT ABOVE THE DEPICTIONS YOU CAN READ.

no bulbs ANYWHERE.

en.wikipedia.org...

The fact the Egyptians didn't believe it was a light bulb doesn't mean it wasn't.

They had ancestors just like we do, and thought stuff from the distant past was mystical, just like we do.

The fact there are multiple, identical drawings, faithfully rendered to be exactly alike, suggests there was probably an original drawing somewhere, that all of them were copied from.

The original drawing might be thousands of years older than the image we're seeing etched on a wall.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: anti72

The American Indians had a flat bit of quartz rock with washboard-like ridges on it and then rubbed another bit across the ridges and it made light, called Triboluminescence. Who is to say if the quartz was electrified you don't get the same effect.It didnt need to be a lightbulb per se.

Source for this?

I'm pretty familiar with Native Americans and haven't come across this. In addition, any light produced this way would be a few seconds in duration.

a reply to: anonentity

Ya the pyramids are bull#. And anybody who says that they can do it with rope and chisels has never picked up a chisel in there life's.

They even have the old uncut still to be quarried block at one of the quarries there. And the Egyptians have been showing people and using that same block, how they did it, since the time of plato and his great great great great uncle.

Can it be done? Ya for sure, it would take billions of dollars and likely a hundred years or more today. Can it be done with dude in loincloths using sleads moving rock through the desert? Off course not, that's just stupid. What are you brain dead. Go try moving a few of those stones around using even modern equipment, and see how far you get in a day.

And remember they did it all within a period of 20 years. Even with modern equipment, ya it can be done. But it would not be a cake walk, and they may not even complete it in under 100 years. The cathedral of Sagrada Família is still not likely to be finished anytime soon, and they have been working on the church for over a 100 years now I think. Much less something of the scale that the grand pyramid is.

Moving and placing or even if they somehow cemented limestone blocks. At the end of the day. about 6 million tons of anything is not easy to move around. Even the cement method. The only thing it would do is make it more parceled out, instead of moving around 3 to over 100 ton block of rock. You would have to move bags of material equaling the same mass.

At the end of the day, you still would need about 6 million tons of material to do it.

Even most modern skyscrapers or buildings today do not have near enough that type of mass. Either way. Pyramids, old news. Who cares.

a reply to: Byrdthe-earth-story.com... My suspicion is that they worked out how to generate light without to much trouble. New Grange was paved with quartz.

originally posted by: Harte
This is wrong. We have a conclusive time period within which the pyramids were constructed, and we have far more than enough evidence to prove who was there at the time.

The most famous pyramids have no writing on any exposed walls at all. However, lots of writing has been found behind those walls and in voids that have been sealed by tons of stone since the things were constructed.

We couldn't have found the writings if they weren't accessible to us, same as they were to the Egyptians who wrote on them after they were built. Next...

There's no 'conclusive time period' they could know, it is limestone, nobody can do accurate testing for the actual building period(s). Many problems with it.

You don't know what happened, how it was built, nobody does, so please stop all the BS.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Harte
This is wrong. We have a conclusive time period within which the pyramids were constructed, and we have far more than enough evidence to prove who was there at the time.

The most famous pyramids have no writing on any exposed walls at all. However, lots of writing has been found behind those walls and in voids that have been sealed by tons of stone since the things were constructed.

We couldn't have found the writings if they weren't accessible to us, same as they were to the Egyptians who wrote on them after they were built.

...

The graffiti in the Great Pyramid were discovered by Vyse and Perring in 1837, after Vyse had ordered the use of gunpowder to blast a way through. They wouldn't have been accessible otherwise.

Studies have shown that the graffiti were most likely the names of the different crews (p. 125 et seq.) who built the pyramids.

(The subject of the graffiti in the GP has also been discussed in some detail in this recent work.)

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: anti72

The American Indians had a flat bit of quartz rock with washboard-like ridges on it and then rubbed another bit across the ridges and it made light, called Triboluminescence. Who is to say if the quartz was electrified you don't get the same effect.It didnt need to be a lightbulb per se.

Source for this?

I'm pretty familiar with Native Americans and haven't come across this. In addition, any light produced this way would be a few seconds in duration.

There was a better source, but in the wiki article its mentioned in the caption below a picture of one of their rattles. The rattles contained quartz, and when the rattled were shaken, it would give off light from the quartz grinding together inside.

en.wikipedia.org...

Although it is a different technology from the Dendera light, discovery of it could have gotten people excited about light sources.


I always envision the discovery of ancient electricity being similarly natural. Finding that, when a copper wire is run between an acid extracted from a plant, and a base perhaps made from lime, something "magical" happens. Then going from there.

Acids can come from any citrus plant.

Calcium Hydroxide seems like the most likely source for a base. One way of generating light, that used to be used in theatres, is burning lime (which is why it is called "the limelight"). After you burn it, you get calcium oxide, which when mixed with water temporarily becomes calcium hydroxide. (Until it absorbs carbon dioxide and becomes lime again.)

Connecting a wire between an acid and a base gets you electricity.

pubs.acs.org...

Calcium Hydroxide and lemon juice would be strong enough to get a result, I think.

Doing it that way, you wouldn't even need to understand what the phenomenon was. They wouldn't have had a "James Clerk Maxwell" who could explain it all to them and then take it further to a full understanding of electromagnetic induction.

But they could run lightbulbs with much less than that knowledge.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
a reply to: anti72

... the Dendera light

...

The problem is, there's no real evidence of anything resembling lightbulb manufacture of any sort in AE.

It's far more likely that what the so-called Dendera lightbulb scene portrays is a scene from myth, the creation of the world (Fr.)

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Harte
This is wrong. We have a conclusive time period within which the pyramids were constructed, and we have far more than enough evidence to prove who was there at the time.

The most famous pyramids have no writing on any exposed walls at all. However, lots of writing has been found behind those walls and in voids that have been sealed by tons of stone since the things were constructed.

We couldn't have found the writings if they weren't accessible to us, same as they were to the Egyptians who wrote on them after they were built. Next...

Apparently you keep yourself unaware of the fact that black powder was used to open the relieving chambers in the GP, that hieroglyphic writing has been found 40 feet into the so-called "air shafts," and that similar writing has been found in G2 and G3, and behind the stones of the Red Pyramid, not to mention other places.

originally posted by: turbonium1There's no 'conclusive time period' they could know, it is limestone, nobody can do accurate testing for the actual building period(s). Many problems with it.

The period of construction at Giza has been determined within a range of a few hundred years, not a few thousand years. This was done by multiple means, including tracing the evolution of the writing, pottery styles and construction techniques but maybe the easiest to get is the two separate C14 assays done there a decade apart.

originally posted by: turbonium1
You don't know what happened, how it was built, nobody does, so please stop all the BS.

In that context, nobody "knows" anything that occurred before the invention of photography.

Harte

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
a reply to: anti72

... the Dendera light

...

The problem is, there's no real evidence of anything resembling lightbulb manufacture of any sort in AE.

It's far more likely that what the so-called Dendera lightbulb scene portrays is a scene from myth, the creation of the world (Fr.)

I don't think the Egyptians had light bulbs, or knew anything about them.

I think their predecessors did. However the Dendera relief was made by the Egyptians. Nonetheless there are a few other completely identical drawings elsewhere, with leads to to believe they are all copies of a picture.

I think the Egyptians had found another "Dendera" picture somewhere, and their priests made up a bunch of mumbo jumbo to explain it.

Probably the AE had no idea what a lightbulb is or how it works, but found the image interesting, and felt a need to incorporate it into their magicks.



It goes to my broader theory about the ice age, that people were taking refuge underground in order to be safe from dangerous megafauna. The Ancient Egyptians had no need (nor any desire) to live underground. They lived in a time after the megafauna were all dead, and probably had no understanding of the conditions their predecessors had faced.

During the ice age, people had both A: more leisure time, and B: a strong motive to want to try and invent or discover good light sources.

Artwork left over from the ice age would have depicted people living underground (which may have shaped Egyptian attitudes about the "after life" being underground), and also would have depicted fierce demons and monsters chasing them (since megafauna seemed like monsters to ice age humans, who only had flint spears to fight them with, and frequently met their death fighting them.)

The thing about ancients and electricity is: it's not like the ancients never encountered it.

The word for "electricity" comes from the Greek word for amber, because the Greeks had discovered that if you rub amber, it creates a weird effect (which we now know to be static electricity.)


The "bagdad battery" is basically just an acid and a base with metal connecting it. And if anyone in the ancient word had been practicing any form of "alchemy", they probably had isolated some acids and bases. They might easily have noticed that when a piece of metal connects the two, if you touch the metal it will shock you.

Now, to them, maybe that was just magick. But if they continued to play around with it, they would in time have found uses for it.

Of course, records we have of things like the Greek's use of rudimentary steam engines, show us that people of that time most often used novel technologies as parlor tricks to exploit the superstitions of the masses, rather than help anybody with them. Posing as magicians, or trying to convince people to believe in their gods.

When Christianity came along, and forbade the "practice of witchcraft and sorcery", most of these technologies probably died out, since they could no longer be used to exploit people.

originally posted by: Hooke
The graffiti in the Great Pyramid were discovered by Vyse and Perring in 1837, after Vyse had ordered the use of gunpowder to blast a way through. They wouldn't have been accessible otherwise.

Studies have shown that the graffiti were most likely the names of the different crews (p. 125 et seq.) who built the pyramids.

(The subject of the graffiti in the GP has also been discussed in some detail in this recent work.)

None of it proves the Egyptians built the pyramids, more the opposite, in fact.

The most glaring problem with your theory, is that if the Egyptians DID build the pyramids, they'd certainly have described to others HOW it was built! Why would anyone write about WHO helped to build something, while not even describe to others about HOW it was built? That is completely illogical, and absurd.


Anyone who has ever invented something, found a new way to build something, or so forth - wants others to know about their achievements, and to support what they invented, or developed, they ALWAYS describe how it was done, by documenting it, or passing it along to their children, and others.

Why would any inventor list the people who helped him along the way, even though none of them invented it, while not even DESCRIBING how it was invented? Come on, that's an absolute joke! Nobody would ever do that, and shows the Egyptians did NOT build the pyramids, but rather, I'm convinced that they were frauds, who took credit for something they never did, and had no CLUE about how they were built.


Past generations pass on their knowledge, or their 'inventions', down to their children, who then pass it on down to their children, their village, or society. For example, the first indigenous people who created canoes, then passed on this knowledge to their children, and so on. This is why we know about ALL of our past inventions, and creations, and structures, except the pyramids, and some others from ancient times.

When we find that there is no record of something built in the past, or sketchy records, it indicates those who built them died off, perhaps being wiped out by invaders, or from disease, so what they did, dies with them, and it often remains a great mystery afterwards.

If we cannot build the GP today, without using modern machinery, which didn't exist back then. Ramps and pulleys don't work, otherwise, the Egyptians would have recreated it by now, at least to some degree. But nobody can do it today, and never will do it in future, by such methods as claimed were used at the time.

Since people of today cannot build the GP, while we can build massive highrises and bridges, far beyond the abilities of earlier generations, it indicates that humans did not build the pyramids, simply due to the fact we cannot build them today, or centuries ago, or anytime at all.

It was not built by some 'aliens' from 'outer space', either! That's for sci-fi movies, and cartoons, and clowns on History Channel, and it's all BS. There is not one shred of valid evidence for such a claim, and never will be any. It's all made up.

There has to be an actual explanation for it, and that's what I'm interested in here. We may never know, but we may find enough evidence to show what likely happened, if not prove it conclusively.

The massive blocks of the GP weigh far too much for us to manipulate, move long distances, rise up to such heights as those of the GP, with ANY method, other than machines of today. Anyone who claims this possible, should know they cannot replicate it today, and that's the harsh reality.


One of my former co-workers in a warehouse I worked at, was 6 ft, 11 inches tall - his hands were 3 times the size of anyone of us, including some who were 6 ft. 4 or 5 inches tall. He's much like Andre the Giant was, with massive hands, feet, and so forth.

There were people who loaded big boxes into trailers - known as 'hand-bombing'. Boxes could be small and light, or big and very heavy. When the boxes were over 50 lbs, two people lifted them together, at the same time.

Even then, two people often struggled to lift boxes up into the trailers.

Except for our giant, that is. He didn't hand-bomb all the time - just once in awhile, when needed.

It's hard to describe how it looked, without being there to see it. He lifted the heaviest boxes we had - not just by himself, but with ONE HAND! If someone saw it, without knowing how heavy the boxes were, they'd think they were empty, or filled with foam peanuts! I'm not joking about this, it was ridiculous to see him grab huge boxes, like they were plastic toys.


He later told me that when people ask how he can do this so easily, he said it's completely normal for someone of his size, and proportions. He compared it to an adult who lifts a chair off the floor, and moves it into another room, downstairs, yet his/her child cannot even budge a leg of the chair off the floor, with all his/her strength.


He said it was all relative, that's what people don't understand when they ask him about it.


That's why I've thought about how ACTUAL giants, of 10-14 feet height, and weighing 1-2 tons, perhaps, would lift up these massive blocks in the GP, which we always have considered impossible to lift by humans alone, that it takes ropes and pulleys, with a hundred or more men lifting together as one, based on the assumption that it MUST HAVE BEEN BUILT BY HUMANS...and no other possibility should be considered for it.

And that's the arrogance of saying that you, or anyone, 'knows' it was built by Egyptians, or whoever, or whatever built it, because nobody knows who, when, or why, it was built. We DO know it wasn't with pulleys and ropes, pulled by hundreds of men at the same time, because nobody can replicate it. Saying it was done with pulleys and ropes and hundreds of men all together as one, sounds like a plausible method they could've used, but it simply does NOT work, in the real world.

This WOULD work if it was built by the ancient giants, if they actually DID exist a long time ago.

Giants are mentioned in many ancient texts, in the Bible, and within the excluded books left out of the current-day Bibles, especially so. If this is all a magical coincidence, to those who claim no giants existed at all.....the probability is giants DID exist on Earth, long ago.

Many reports mention fossils of giants being found all over the world, but for some reason, most of the fossils just 'disappear' afterwards. Nothing fishy about that, of course!

If the evidence of giants is always stolen away, who would want to do it, and who actually could do it? Think hard now..it will come to you, I'm sure....Hint - look at a US dollar bill.

Why would the US one dollar bill have a huge EYE hovering above the Great Pyramid, of Egypt? Any idea? Think hard.


The huge 'eye' symbolizes their knowledge about the pyramids - knowing exactly who built them, knowing why they were built, and knowing when they were built. It's the only thing that makes sense, while nothing else even comes close to making sense about it.

Why do you think Giants would be able to do it? I can see a giant moving a 5 ton block. I can't see them moving an 80 ton block.

Although personally I suspect that ice age stories of "giants" referred to the megafauna, rather than humanoid giants. Perhaps the writings weren't specific about that, and later generations made assumptions?

At the same time, though, there was bones of a tribe found in the Sahara (from back when it was greener), where the average size was as tall as an NBA basket ball player. Shaquille O'niel would only be slightly above the average for that tribe. Calling them "giants" wouldn't be too much of an understatement.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The "bagdad battery" is basically just an acid and a base with metal connecting it. And if anyone in the ancient word had been practicing any form of "alchemy", they probably had isolated some acids and bases. They might easily have noticed that when a piece of metal connects the two, if you touch the metal it will shock you.

An acid and a base create mostly heat when they are mixed.

You need two different metals and electrolyte for a battery, like copper, zinc, and lemon juice.

the Baghdad batteries follow the same principle.

Physical description and dating

The artifacts consist of a terracotta pot approximately 130 mm (5 in) tall (with a one-and-a-half-inch mouth) containing a cylinder made of a rolled copper sheet, which houses a single iron rod. At the top, the iron rod is isolated from the copper by bitumen, with plugs or stoppers, and both rod and cylinder fit snugly inside the opening of the jar. The copper cylinder is not watertight, so if the jar were filled with a liquid, this would surround the iron rod as well. The artifact had been exposed to the weather and had suffered corrosion.

German archeologist Wilhelm König thought the objects might date to the Parthian period, between 250 BC and AD 224. However, according to St John Simpson of the Near Eastern department of the British Museum, their original excavation and context were not well-recorded, and evidence for this date range is very weak. Furthermore, the style of the pottery is Sassanid (224–640).[1][2]
en.wikipedia.org...

Theories concerning operation

Its origin and purpose remain unclear.[1] Wilhelm König was an assistant at the Iraq Museum in the 1930s. He had observed a number of very fine silver objects from ancient Iraq, plated with very thin layers of gold, and speculated that they were electroplated. In 1938 he authored a paper[3][4] offering the hypothesis that they may have formed a galvanic cell, perhaps used for electroplating gold onto silver objects.[1] This interpretation is rejected by skeptics.[5]

Corrosion of the metal and tests both indicate that an acidic agent such as wine or vinegar was present in the jar.[1] This led to speculation that the liquid was used as an acidic electrolyte solution to generate an electric current from the difference between the electrode potentials of the copper and iron electrodes.[2]
en.wikipedia.org...

The electric lighting ideas are far to complicated. and involve another set of manufacturing tools.

a reply to: Hooke

Wasn't there some controversy about a German crew scraping some of the graffiti and getting it tested for age?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why do you think Giants would be able to do it? I can see a giant moving a 5 ton block. I can't see them moving an 80 ton block.

There's no reason to think they couldn't move 80 ton blocks, since strength grows exponentially with greater size and weight.

I've told you about the 'giant' I worked with - he was 6 ft. 11 inches, which is about 1 foot or so, above the average height of a human male. Consider another man who is 1 foot shorter than 5 ft. 11.

All things being equal, the 4 ft 11 in man will be close in strength to the 5 ft 11 in man, while the 5 ft. 11 in man will NOT come close to the strength of a 6 ft 11 in. man. I'm speaking in general terms here, of course, it's not a blanket rule, it's meant as an average.

There was a bio on Andre the Giant on the tube recently, some of you may have seen it. Hulk Hogan said Andre picked him up in once, and put him on a shelf, like he was a little doll. That's what I'm referring to about how strong giants of TODAY are, at only 7 ft tall!


A 12-14 foot tall giant would literally dwarf the strength of someone like Andre the Giant, and he weighed about half a ton himself! Hulk Hogan is 6 ft 7 in, and weighed 300 lbs at the time Andre put him on a shelf like a little doll.


It would be like comparing a small child to the world's strongest men, and then 3 times that.... would be my guesstimate of their strength.


It would certainly help to resolve the great mystery of how the pyramids were built.