Posted on 01/18/2014 11:21:03 AM PST by SunkenCiv
“But if you wanted a house built, would you use me or an archaeologist?”
Good one!
Great Pyramid may still contain Khufu’s intact pharaonic tomb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1442529/posts
He explained: “Under the current theories, to lay the two million stone blocks required the Egyptians would have to have laid a large block once every three minutes on long ramps.I haven't heard a good explanation of how they got around this one.
This rate of bricklaying is required to complete the job in 11 years, working 24/7. Regardless of whether the rubble theory is correct, it's not that difficult to achieve if you consider that more than one bricklayer and more than one stone carrying team was involved. The pyramid is large enough to support 100 such teams - and each laying team would use tens, if not hundreds, of stone delivery teams, so that the bricklayer at the pyramid always has stones to position and lay down. If each bricklayer needs 1 hour to place one stone, they needed only 20 bricklayers. This is not an unusual number; you can have that many working on a house today.
With regard to rubble, today it's probably easy enough to transport it on large mining trucks. But what would that be easier in ancient Egypt, delivering rubble (in baskets?) or pushing a single, self-contained block of stone? There was a considerable shortage of heavy trucks in Egypt. Transportation of a stone slab only requires pulling force (slaves, animals) and some rollers (trunks of trees.) The road would become flat enough on its own, after first 1,000 slabs are delivered.
Rubble also has tendency to settle. Today thick walls of brick buildings are usually hollow, and filled inside with light gravel, for stability and for thermal insulation. However that gravel has no load-carrying function. A pyramid would have to have an all-stone framework, with voids that one could fill; but that framework has to be very, very strong - perhaps stronger than the stone. Gravel alone would settle over centuries, and the pyramid would fall inward, or otherwise sag, with very obvious deformations inside and outside. This is not what is observed, as I understand - the structure appears to be very rigid. It may be that gravel comprises 50% of the pyramid, but not much more, given that the pyramid is still standing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1769027/posts?page=57#57
MICHIGAN MAN MAY HAVE TAPPED SECRETS OF THE ANCIENTS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104739/posts
Ancient mystery solved? Taft
man says ‘Murphy Mover’ explains pyramids
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1777639/posts
Taft man says ‘Murphy Mover’ explains pyramids
http://www.hotspotsz.com/Taft_man_says_Murphy_Mover_explains_pyramids_(Article-6195).html
http://www.hotspotsz.com/images0/James_Murphy.jpg
The “Pyramids” are actually an optical illusion, projected
upon desert sands with a sort of ‘Magic Lantern.’
I Think Jean-Pierre Houdin pretty well nails the construction process for the Pyramids. In addition to his internal ramp theory he found a corner cavity inside the great pyramid edge where a block and tackle tripod could manipulate and turn the blocks as the project built up. Remember they put the angled smooth face blocks at the outside on first.
The other thing he and Bob Brier, of Long Island University found, in what I think was a destroyed temple or some other kind of construction was evidence for the internal ramps having been a way to get material to the top of their projects.
Look at the pics in comment #17 to better understand theory
You may not be a leftist, but if you think the pyramids were made of cement, I can’t vouch for the other. And I read the book. Interesting nonsense, like the first “Chariots Of The Gods”.
We shall see.
Brier took Houdin out to see the (somewhat younger, but still Old Kingdom) temple out in the desert, to show him an example of the very kind of internal ramp that Houdin had posited as part of the solution to the construction.
One of the problems with any of these explanations — other than Davidovits’ geopolymerization — is the need for lots of dressed stone to fit basically perfectly with the adjacent stones; another problem is, getting those stones to the very top.
Having an internal ramp is perfectly compatible with the geopolymer approach. Those gi-normous granite blocks used for the internal chambers (”King’s” and “Queen’s”) had to be hauled up there on a ramp, and I can easily accept that the Grand Gallery was used in some way shape or form to pull those stones up an opposing ramp.
Houdin says the opposite ramp was torn down when no longer needed, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it, too, remains to be found, internal to the Pyramid, or at least the top half of the ramp is in there, although filled in when no longer needed, and in the Davidovits scenario, poured full.
It’s worth noting that almost 90% of the mass of the Giza pyramid(s) is found in the lower 50% of the structure; it’s not a bad idea, Houdin’s internal small ramp, but it’s more likely that other, small ramps were also used and filled-behind as the first 89% of the mass was constructed, even with a more conventional carved stones model. Only one of the internal ramp lines appears to be visible (probably due to moisture, early in the morning) on one side of the Great Pyramid.
That notch that Brier explores (see the vid links above, anyone who’s interested) may be consistent with Houdin’s theoretical explanation, which requires a crane on the corners to turn the stones. That part of his idea is frankly ridiculous to me; the blocks of the Great Pyramid in particular are not all one size or shape. I could accept that some kind of block and tackle, capstan, etc was located at that corner to pull the blocks up the ramp.
The problem with this idea is, one ramp, one block at a time, and there are millions of blocks to place. Unless one accepts the geopolymerization model of Davidovits, those bottlenecks are always there.
It started to make much more sense to me years ago when I saw a documentary about Amazon gold miners; they had started out with a small mountain, and were at that time working in a pit about the same distance down as the mountain had been up. Thousands of miners had done this 40 pounds at a time. Reverse that and it becomes obvious that construction would be greatly eased.
At a minimum, a quarried block model would require the use of many routes up into the structure, just to build the structure. It needs to be said also that half of the mass of the structure, and therefore the first ten years of work, would occur in the first, hmm, what, 1/5 or 1/6 of the total final height?
Great summary!
I have read the book, obviously, and it is absolutely nothing like “Chariots of the Gods”.
It also gives you indications of when to fold or to raise.
At least the theory doesn’t start with the premise that ancient humans were complete dummies, like the ancient astronaut theorists.
I guess for now I will have to go with the idea of a skilled work force. Seriously, the amount of labor goes down exponentially as the structure goes up and didn’t Jean Pierre Houdin reason the the first 1/3 or so have a standard ramp built as it was raised. That could have been a wide,no very wide, ramp being used with multiple tracks, some for fill some for face blocks and some for structural blocks. Just a thought.
I believe this guy’s theory:
http://videosift.com/video/French-Architect-Discovers-How-Pyramids-Were-Really-Built
Yore roof is a pyramid! lol
ZULU, thanks for showing the computer simulation model that Jean-Pierre Houdin has developed. It may provide more insights to the way it really was built. I guess time will tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
