A question of common sense, that really just deletes a supposed "Ancient Mystery"!

Talking about the building of the Pyramids here.

I know most people here want to think there is a special magical way of how the Egyptians built the Pyramids. And I never understood why it was a mystery.
You don't need aliens or a special sound technology to move these massive blocks.

If you saw a 100 ton block of steal, would you wonder how it was moved to its' location? No you wouldn't.
If you saw a 100 ton block of pottery, would you wonder how it was moved to its' location? No you wouldn't.
You would rightly assume they were smelted in place.

A 100 million ton block of stone were not moved. It was simply broken into pieces, moved, and smelted on site.
There has been evidence of burnt limestone at these sites for ages, but people always say that limestone cannot be smelted. If you understand the chemistry, it can. And while limestone is difficult to smelt, other stones are not.

With the simplest answer usually being the correct answer, this is obviously the answer. Not aliens. Not giants. Not Dinosaurs. Not special technologies lost to time.

Seriously, never understood why people think the blocks were moved and carved etc. Can you imagine the amount of work it would take to carve these blocks to the exact dimensions fitting another block? People try to fit triangles into square holes. Stop thinking so hard.

Yee Haw!

a reply to: FingerMan

Where would they get the fuel to create a source of heat hot enough to smelt limestone? Also if this is the case then surely there would be tonnage of slag all over the place.

a reply to: Brotherman

There is, but not a ton.

For the Pyramids, all they must do is build a smelting pot in the center of the pyramid, as blocks are poured, simply move the smelting pot to accommodate.

That would not take much time. Moving the rocks would take a massive work force. But with a large enough workforce, you could build the pyramid in no time.

a reply to: FingerMan

On a note regarding this a online radio host touched on a topic relating to this topic. For the alleged hundreds of years it would take to build each of these
Monuments, why is there no evidence of these builders?

It would take X1 amount of laborers to move each stone from the quarry to the build site. Then X2 amount of laborers at the build site to finish the stone and move it into place. In theory there would then require a graveyard. X1+X2=Y. Now account for the laborers needed to bury laborers of Y in equality with the amount of stones needed to build each Monument and multiply per Monument.

Using this theory we should have hundreds of thousands if not millions. If so yes they could be buried in the sand and thousands of years of decomposition could occur. However that would mean there should be a significantly large boneyard of at least scattered fragments doubling at minimum the size of Frances catacombs.

However there is no evidence of such to date. Also there is no evidence of the structural basis of what would have been needed to accommodate such a population. I do understand that wind + sand essentially act as a large grinder over time. However the numbers do not compute in my opinion with the alleged workers camps that have been found

a reply to: FingerMan

If they had this technology to smelt rocks then surely there would be clear evidence of such in other locations. Again the evidence if this is there method would be literally everywhere. A little bit of slag here and there imo is there more likely due to smaller forges creating and repairing soft metal tools and making “hardware”

That’s just my two cents though.

a reply to: FingerMan

Interesting premise, but, limestone melts at 4200 to 5200 degrees F. Suppose you did smelt it, what are you going to pour liquid stone into that would shape it into blocks? Can't be wood forms, hell, it can't be steal (steel for the correct spellers out there) that melts at around 3000 degrees F. If you pour liquid stone into stone molds I imagine it would liquify the mold at 5K degrees F. The molds would weigh more than the poured cubes.

Maybe the ancients used magnetic containment? I think there would be a clue about magnetic containment some where if they did. Who knows?

a reply to: Brotherman

Oh I get it. But there is evidence of burnt rocks at the Pyramids. Not sure about the others.
If they could smelt Bronze and possibly Iron, they could smelt stone.

It really is the simplest answer. And it does answer a hole host of issues besides just the movement of massive stones.

Mass group think is about as dumb as you can get. Evidence is everywhere for this, from Ukraine to Covid to scientific models that are 100% the absolute truth until the next one.

The concept of KISS could not be more applicable.

a reply to: FingerMan

I don't think you've really read a lot on the subject. Please read about the Olmecs and Mayas. Inca are a newer culture, and they pretty much just stacked rocks on top of what a previous civilization created.

a reply to: FingerMan

If they could do all that why didn’t they develop something more simplistic like concrete of sorts then?

originally posted by: NightFlight
a reply to: FingerMan

Interesting premise, but, limestone melts at 4200 to 5200 degrees F. Suppose you did smelt it, what are you going to pour liquid stone into that would shape it into blocks? Can't be wood forms, hell, it can't be steal (steel for the correct spellers out there) that melts at around 3000 degrees F. If you pour liquid stone into stone molds I imagine it would liquify the mold at 5K degrees F. The molds would weigh more than the poured cubes.

Maybe the ancients used magnetic containment? I think there would be a clue about magnetic containment some where if they did. Who knows?

Not sure what they used for containment but I would imagine it was probably stone slabs.
I remember seeing people talking about the use of glass to magnify the sun to achieve hot enough temperatures. That is absolutely terrifyingly hot. Not sure how they did it, but I am sure this is how it was accomplished here and at other sites like Baalbek. Looking through the lens of KISS, there is no other answer.

originally posted by: stelth2
a reply to: FingerMan

I don't think you've really read a lot on the subject. Please read about the Olmecs and Mayas. Inca are a newer culture, and they pretty much just stacked rocks on top of what a previous civilization created.

No offense, but what a nerdy passive/aggressive thing to say.

I agree with the premise that sites were built upon by later cultures. What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with that.

There is a young man making YT vids postulating that world wide culture existed prior to our current. With the evidence of the pyramids around the world, and their similar construction. What he says is that the same technology was used all over the world, and was akin to today's skyscrapers. A skyscraper in China is not the same as one in NY, but it is obvious the same method and technologies were used. I tend to agree with his hypothesis. It fits the KISS model.

originally posted by: FingerMan

If you saw a 100 ton block of steal, would you wonder how it was moved to its' location? No you wouldn't.
If you saw a 100 ton block of pottery, would you wonder how it was moved to its' location? No you wouldn't.
You would rightly assume they were smelted in place.

If I saw a 100 ton block of steel or pottery, my first wonder would be why would anyone make such a thing? Neither one is very useful, and will have to be broken down eventually to be used for anything.

If, for some reason, I wanted to build a huge pyramid in the desert, and I had an energy source capable of smelting rock, I would use the available sand on site to make glass blocks. It would sure beat shipping gravel down the Nile from the quarry site. And I would make the blocks smaller, easier to manage. It would look real spiffy even without a limestone coating. Of course, I wouldn't want to be inside a large, glass, pyramid with no windows at high noon in the desert.

originally posted by: FingerMan

Seriously, never understood why people think the blocks were moved and carved etc. Can you imagine the amount of work it would take to carve these blocks to the exact dimensions fitting another block? People try to fit triangles into square holes. Stop thinking so hard.

I'm having trouble imagining the amount of energy it would take to melt 10 tons of gravel into a solid block.

But you do hit on an important point. However it was done, the process for constructing a large pyramid represents a HUGE amount of energy. Whether it's manpower, ancient or alien technology, whatever. I don't think the pharaoh's tombs theory holds water. I think if we could answer the question of why, that would tell us who, and that would tell us how.

a reply to: FingerMan
Limestone doesn’t melt. When you heat it hot enough it gives off carbon dioxide and leaves behind calcium oxide, which is the basic ingredient of lime mortar. This has been known since prehistoric times. I guess you didn’t get the message.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: FingerMan
Limestone doesn’t melt. When you heat it hot enough it gives off carbon dioxide and leaves behind calcium oxide, which is the basic ingredient of lime mortar. This has been known since prehistoric times. I guess you didn’t get the message.

That is what people said, and then they figured out it can be done. If you read my OP, you'd see I said "chemistry". Coz you have to use additives in the process.

GJ sounding like a millenial troll with your post.

Uhuh and where are the giant crucible used to do this to be found? And he did they get them out from the center? And even if they did what were they made of you withstand that temp???


You sound super confident for a guy w a lot of holes in his theory

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: FingerMan
Limestone doesn’t melt. When you heat it hot enough it gives off carbon dioxide and leaves behind calcium oxide, which is the basic ingredient of lime mortar. This has been known since prehistoric times. I guess you didn’t get the message.

That is what people said, and then they figured out it can be done. If you read my OP, you'd see I said "chemistry". Coz you have to use additives in the process.

GJ sounding like a millenial troll with your post.

No he sounds like someone who remember basic high school chemistry

a reply to: FingerMan
The most simple theory is the alien theory. Not only the pyramids but so many other structures raise questions.
www.evawaseerst.be...

I thought, besides the quarry work and transport logistics, the inner ramp theory is the most plausible. Because they found this cave in the corner that has all the characteristics.

And the main gallery also has the perfect fitting abrasion marks. With enough people going up the pyramids and down on an elevator slide, you have variable counterweights. The main workforce is in the feet of the workers dragging themselves up there several times or in shifts. Do work up there and ride down on a slide that drags up the next stone. Send down the empty stone carriage with other people to pull up the empty people slide again.

This way most work is done by gravity and the workload by putting their body weights on height, for a ride down. This was not integrated in the video but is afterthought from me.




Add: To further demonstrate my idea, there is a mine somewhere in Africa that used electric trucks that never need to be charged externally. How it works is that the mine is on higher elevation. The trucks are charged once and drive up empty. Once full with tons of material, they recuperate down the hill and recharge. Because of the additional weight, it is more than enough energy generated to be able to drive the truck up the hill again and repeat the cycle.

It's genius!
Best understandable version I found (the other one is not good in audio quality)

The problem with your theory is the blocks show signs of being manually made, ie, chipped and ground. The biggest problem with any theory of the building of the pyramids is the vast majority have never even been and touched them and rely on earlier accounts.
Along side the South American stone structures the Egyptian pyramids seem to have been built by children. Apart from some internal work the pyramids themselves are NOT finely carved, they are roughly shaped and not very well matched to the next blocks.
The enigma is (the answer to I read recently) all these blocks being quarried and shaped but where is all the off chippings. It was calculated that the chipping alone would be 10 times the size of the great pyramid. So a new theory is that the blocks that you can see are only a casing and the mass interior is filled with the chippings. There fore killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Not so many blocks needed and getting rid of the chippings.
This does not include the fine internal stone work.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: FingerMan
Limestone doesn’t melt. When you heat it hot enough it gives off carbon dioxide and leaves behind calcium oxide, which is the basic ingredient of lime mortar. This has been known since prehistoric times. I guess you didn’t get the message.

That is what people said, and then they figured out it can be done. If you read my OP, you'd see I said "chemistry". Coz you have to use additives in the process.

GJ sounding like a millenial troll with your post.

No he sounds like someone who remember basic high school chemistry

I know education and outside the box thinking isn't big in Texas. Not sure if you are insulting high school?