Printable View
i want to know how these giants were build. recently has been discovered that the original theory of the "Brigde" of sand over wich they transported the blocks of stone to the top, must have been 120 km long and so much sand was needed that you couldnt find it in the Sahara.
now my question is, how were they build then.
This is stupid. Let's say the ramp was 120km long. And let's assume that it is 0.146km high (the height of the largest pyramid). Let's also assume that the ramp is 1km wide.
Now we have the ramp as a rectangular prism, which has a volume of 17.52 cubic kilometres. In reality it would be half as much of that, but we're using extreme examples here (see the 1km width of said ramp).
Now the Sahara desert has an area of ~4600000 square kilometres. By my calculations it would have to have an average depth of sand of 0.0000037928152994km, or 0.00379m, or 0.379cm, or 3.79mm, for your ramp to use all of the sand in the desert. Are you telling me that the average depth of sand in the Sahara Desert is less than 3.79mm?
It makes it a little difficult to take your post seriously when the maths is flawed from the start.
ROFL, who the hell told you that? I mean it defy's all logic. I've seen a group of archeologists and engineers try different methods of pyramid building, on a 25 foot high pyramid. They used ramps that wound all the way round it to move the stones. And it worked, quite well. It was tricky but completely possible to move heavy blocks around angles to get them to the topQuote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
WOOOOW. You're a real mathematician.....
Maybe the desert was smaller back then ~D
CBR
it was, but not that much. he i'm not the one that made the calculations so dont get mad. i'm just asking it cuz i dont know, if i''m wrong you can say so GENTLY.
EDIT DGB if youre such a great math, maybe i had to lenght wrong it must be no problem for you (i suck at math) to define the best angle to role stones over it and with the height of the pyramid you can calculate the actual length of the ramp. would you like to do that. thanx :bow:
Heh, can't do that, I was just using basic volumes. My field is economics, with a bit of geography. Some engineers aroudn here might be able to do better, but something about what you were saying just didn't ring true to me.
As for the construction of them, I have no idea - I don't hugely care either ~;) - however the economics of their construction could be interesting.
Maybe the pharoahs were Keynesians?
oops i made a mistake, i asked it again and it was 1200 km. DGB how much is that. :bow:
Soulforged
Junior Member
"Caesar for gods sake you're talking like those people that believed in UFOs, denying all rational history....you can always say that the piramyds were built for aliens" .
:embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:
wow, a junior that wans a fight. yihaa
Yeah it was the aliens... Everybody knows that!!! And if you don't then you are just a fool and I will not listen to your arguments!
~;)
Now as said by good old lars, a revolving ramp has proven both rather small and rather effective. By far the best answer we have, and one that makes the job possible. That just leaves the perfectly stones and perfect alignment as well as the perfect water alignment. How that was I don't know, but the building of the structures is possible if you have the manpower around, and the builders city nearby proves that there was plenty of manpower at hand.
I'm more interested in the Sphinx and its disproportionally small head (despite the harder rock). It has a lot of questions attached to it, and I do not presume to have the answers, but none have so far given me any answers that are good enough to explain it. So I sit and await the time when someone bright steps up and finds out, as with the pyramids. For right now the egyptologists simply won't do anything about it. They have chosen that their ideas are right despite obvious faults...
yeah. but what the heck, just thought i'd ask. but can someone tell me what it is when the ramp is 1200 km long.
Those juniors...Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
Open Your Mind!!! :book:
The pyramids were constructed " in situ " the blocks are of a durable polymer (a type of plastic) synthetic, very heavy, this is not new, approximately 10 years ago a French biochemist demonstrated it (in an experimental way) but it was rejected by the scientific community because UFO sindrome was approaching too much the topic, which is a real blasphemy for them.
ps: sorry to kill your language :book:
so youre saying the pyramids are plastic, that was not my question i asked how not of what material. or are you saying that those heavy plastic blocks are actually light heavy plastic block
No, what I have said (or I have meant) was that those blocks were made of a similar composed polymer to plastic, and were made (or created) in the same place, they were not moved, that responds to "how"....at least in the physical aspect.
It is easy enough to move them. They are stone native to the area.
Why on Earth would they require a 1200km long ramp? That is a rise of 12cm per km... that is far longer then required.
Nor is the craftmanship that hard to expect. Modern stuff is made fast not particularly well. Squaring off a rock isn't as hard as one would expect if you have access to basic mathematics.
If they had any understanding of pistons, pulleys, levers, archimedes screw, animal power etc it gets a lot easier.
Just see what the Easter Islanders did on a small island.
The Incas and many other cultures made pyramids... it is a simple artifical hill compared with a large city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The blocks weigh from 2 to 80 tons each one, and if they were of stone, idea that I don´t share ¿ how they transported more than 27.000 blocks since the quarries of Aswan that are at some 1.000 kilometers from distance?, ¿how they cut the blocks with tools of copper, since did not they know the iron? How they reach to the top of the pyramid (148 meters)?
The only thing we all know is that there are more questions than answers!!
They sailed the stones on barges on the Nile.
And you don't believe it is stones? How then do you explain all the cracked blocks and those that have been nearly pluverized? There aer more pyramids than the thre big ones. For instance there is one where you can see how the constructors failed in the math. They tried to build it too steep (it would have been higher than the Khufu pyramid), then it began to crack, so they changed to a more acceptable angle. And now it stand there, with cracks in the lower half and a 'perfect' top. So the pyramids are far from perfect.
Although it seems a bit of a stretch but I saw something on the use of kites to assist the slaves in moving the stones up a sand bridge. The experiment worked real well when they raised an obelisk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
The Egyptians :egypt: were experienced with rope works and riggings etc. but I don’t know how realistic it would be to harness the ever-changing wind. But they did take many years to build, who knows what each new generation may have tried, in addition to the slaves of course.
I think you are refering to Joseph Davidovits' research. He proposed that the stones were made of concrete. The cement was cast on site into blocks of stone, which after 4000 years of wear and tear look remarkably like natural stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Favius Argentum
As far as I know his work was a serious scientific effort, and sounded like a plausible hypothesis to me.
Unfortunately, recent research on tiny fragments taken from the center of one 'rock/concrete' building block showed that it is 100.000 year old materiel.
Alas, his theory therefore doesn't hold. The blocks are made of natural stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
yeah they sailed it over there, i knew that, but how to reach the top. they found a channel that goes to the nile and they asume it was used to transport the stones
they used no slaves, the workers were payed. it was a honor to work for the pharaohQuote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
In some time peoiods in Egyptian society being a slave wasn't particularly a bad thing. Egypt had many slaves in positions from laborers to what some may consider positions of civil service. One mans slave is another mans “worker” and of course they were paid, some with food and lodging others with currency depending upon the social position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
It was an honor to work for the Pharaoh is exactly what I would say if the Pharaoh was my boss. As a matter of fact it is what I say to my boss now!
I have read where there were times where construction stopped during planting and harvesting seasons because the “workers” had to go to the fields. So I could see how accounts could be mixed up between who were farmers/workers/slaves.
It may also depend on which pyramids and when. Some Pharaohs were not as benevolent as others.
hmmm, but they did strike when the paychecks were late.
Not only that, but also when the mascara was late. Yup you read that right, mascara. If their make-up didn't arrive they stopped working and sat eatingthe nice food they were supplied with (they ate meat and fishes, which was similar to eating like aristocracy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
It was most certainly a good job if quite hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Why does that explanation make me think of the game of pharoah
Only three other sets of men do I know who wear mascara.
Trannies... Lola...
Mine workers... that is a result of engrained coal dust and not a choice.
Footballers... they wear it to reduce sun glare... now this would be useful when working in a bright environment with light stone.
hhahahahaha, but almost all eggies wore mascara.
Pick the band of your choice, recently, and half of them are wearing mascara, or haven't you seen Green Day and many other neo-punk bands, or one of the multitude of neo-emo bands?
Makeup has a long and rich tradition. Although, I highly recommend against attempting to explain the origins of red lipstick to your date. Women seem to take it wrong when confronted with the fact that bright red lipstick originated with a particularly specialized subset of Egyptian prostitutes, who were attempting to make their mouths look more like something else and thus more appealing to their customers. Sometimes, the truth can hurt and won't set you free. ~D