I apologise for not being clear. Let me try again; I have pictures of pyramids being built using ramps. What part is illogical or nonsensical? It seems logical and sensible for me to say that I’ve seen pictures of pyramids being built using ramps when that’s a fact. The evidence I have to support my claim is the pictures that exist.
I hope that’s clearer. If there’s anything specific you don’t think I’ve explained well enough, please do ask. But, as I say; your debunking is debunked.
It’s the men who generate 5.5 HP. Specifically it was 28 men and 14 relief men lifting water in the “grand gallery”.
I don’t believe catching water and channeling it into counterweights constitute “elaborate”. It really doesn’t matter what word is used though.
OK. I understand now.
If this claim is factual, I’ll assume you mean drawings.
If you aren’t joking I’ll assume you’re referring to the drawing of oxen pulling a rectilinear stone. This drawing post-dates great pyramid construction by quite a few centuries however. There really isn’t any evidence any stone was ever dragged up any great pyramids. I could review the actual facts that lead Egyptologists to believe in ramps but none of these facts actually support the idea except that there was an indeterminant about of what appeared to be dismantled ramps in the G1 main quarry. There’s just no good reason to extrapolate such a fact into “they mustta used ramps”. All the other evidence they cite actually works against the idea of using ramps because they are more consistent with pulling stones straight up the side one step at a time.
Ramps are debunked and the evidence that is being interpreted to support ramps is a misinterpretation. The word “ramp” isn’t even attested. There is no cultural context to suggest they could only have used ramps and this has been the chief argument all along.
Now it’s men producing the work and not geysers? What’s next?
How much time did it take for your mechanism to lift a 5000 lb. block of stone 1 foot?
No - well, that’s not quite true, there is what looks like oxen pulling cuboid stones, more irregular stones, triangular prismic shapes, and some that it’s difficult to tell exactly. There’s also images of ramps in place among structures built from such stones, including both “distance” and close-up images. The ramps in the images appear to be in some places in one “piece”, in others in multiple pieces, and moving up levels of the depicted pyramids. The oxen aren’t included in every image.
And sorry to use the wrong terminology. I don’t really know how all these things are referred to by experts; I can only say what I see. Drawings does seem like the right word. But, there you go! Un-debunked!
I go over these things so many times I just figure everyone must have it. Instead it seems every point has to be made for each individual at least once.
The geyser did the lion’s share of the physical work. Indeed, its total capacity to do work was three times its height times the weight of the water it sprayed because the water also worked in the cliff face couterweights which took it below the base of the geyser. The difference was lost to friction.
However, if there was insufficient water to keep all the systems going then they fired up the systems to lift watrer manually. This increased HP by 5.5
The “Bulls of Heaven” had a ~14 minute cycle. The dndndr-boat was loaded as the counterweight was filled. On average six stones was loaded on it and it required about 8 minutes to fill the counterweight. When it took off it zipped right up to the top of the next step where it was immediately unloaded and sent back down (apparently some had a bladder that held enough water to reset the system. The counterweight had already been dumped automatically as it was inverted at the end of its run. It then required a few seconds to get the signal that the counterweight was set and ready to fill and the process was completed.
It required about 14 minutes to lift six stones but two primary systems operated. There were also several secoindary systems and the cliff face counterweights which were major workhorses. The western cliff face counterweight pulled half a million stones up out of the quarry and straight up on the pyramiod by itsels. Its run is seen above the eastern part of the boat museum.
The math appears not to work because many stones were launched from an 80’ platform and a few near the top were pulled in one jump by first filling a lake on top (lifting the water one step at a time). The average stone was lifted only 1.7 times and was rigged for lifting about 2 1/2 times (they were rigged in the quarry differently than on the pyramid using a “protopulley” for a coupler).
They worked eight days then had a maintenance shift and then a holiday. Days were about ten hours I believe and they had two shifts. Men were expected to be competent and very concientious. Errors were severely but fairly punished. There was a skeleton night shift crew which principally tended equipment and were there to operate the lifts that got the morning crew to work.
The system was exceedinly simple and primitive when it was being used to build mastabas but it became increasingly complex allowing for construction of the great pyramids.
When the water failed they could no longer build pyramids. I would be madness itself to drag stones up ramps in peak growing season with no crop in the ground.
QFT.
You really miss the point of computer models cladking, as Houdin did he only needed to show first how plausible his idea was in a simpler model and then the experts in physical computer modelling looked at the stresses and energy requirements. The computer experts agreed that the idea of Houdin was really possible and their insight helped made the point that the notch room up in the pyramid had the structure and shape that matched the likely path of the internal ramp.
As I can tell you, a model is not showing the truth, but it is a really big way to get to it.
I have little doubts that Houdin started with very simple models that only showed how plausible his idea was, but the point here is also that the simple model was useful to open doors. It allowed Houdin to convince others to take the idea further.
Ignoring the tools of the 21st century is not a good way to make progress cladking. What it does is only to limit yourself and so far the evidence is that you are running on garbage, refusing to even consider to look at simulations only shows a fear of finding right away that your ideas are not even plausible for a simple model.
And really cladking, I also saw the images as the experts in gravimetry explained what the shape was most likely inside the pyramid, it was not just the one you looked or linked at.
How did the 30,000 lbs. of stone and more than 30,000 lbs. water stop when they were done zipping?
It’s surprising Egyptologists aren’t aware these drawings exist.
This could really be a shot in the arm for their ideas and they never needed it more than they do right this minute. Things look to get only worse.
There are numerous ways to do this.
I believe that one of the ways involved lifting a weight in the airshafts. This is not extremely well evidenced however. I believe most of them just had the counterweight invert just as the load reached the pyramid top. The path for the counterweight curved at the bottom. It’s a tough call and the PT is nearly mute on this specific subject. It does say there was a water release in the counterweight but I suspect this was for emergency only. It’s a little surprising to me that more isn’t written about it. The PT authors would have been far more familiar with the head of the “Bull of Heaven” and there’s much more about it.
I’m starting to think that ‘stinky footed bumpkins’ ties in with your use of ‘superstitious’ and your own belief.
It wouldn’t be the case that you think the egyptologists have their religion completely wrong as well, would it?
That the Egyptians did not worship multiple Gods but that they meant, uhm… metaphysical things when speaking of rituals and Gods.
I’m sorry cladking, but you are kind of pinned here. You lament loudly that Egyptologists refuse to do modern scans or whatever to satisfy your curiousity yet dismiss out of hand something concrete that you yourself could attempt. Namely, get some 3D modeling software and show that your idea is remotely possible. Computer modeling has revolutionized invention and building. Don’t try to sit there and say oh it’s useless in this case.
There are numerous ways to almost anything but the Egyptians had no way to do this. It’s easy to come up with fanciful schemes for building pyramids, it’s quite another thing to actually do it. There is no way the ancient Egyptians could have built this device you dream of. What kind of rope did they use? Do you realize ropes would have constantly been stretching before they finally broke and tons of stone and water came crashing down? What was this stone carrier that can zip 30,000 pounds of rock up the side of a pyramid made of? What was this counterweight water holder made of? And of course what did the ropes run over at the top of the pyramid? Had they developed some magical type of bearing surface for ropes to slide over friction free while tensioned by over 100,000 pounds of force? All that before those ropes broke at unpredictable times in the process?
IANAE (I am not an Egyptologist). I do not know the names of any Egyptologists save for the names that appear in this thread. Your theory is disproved by it’s lack of feasibility in the face of ordinary engineering problems.
Don’t worry - they do. But if you feel that the knowledge that ramps were used to build great pyramids isn’t widespread enough, you could always help spread it yourself.
I believe that you believe that…but I don’t believe that. You aren’t the first monomaniacal researcher to come here with an alternative theory or this or that, and at a certain point, confirmation bias becomes epistemic closure, and any chance of honestly and objectively evaluating their own theories is gone for good.
You have all the same characteristics: you only consider interpretations favorable to your theory; the fields of science that, under your theory, are completely wrong keeps growing and growing (from Egyptology to linguistics to sociobiology to geology to archaeology…); and you have a set of talking points you rehash over and over.
As I already noted, Egypt has been really dangerous and unstable for some time now…are you sure that has nothing to do with how much study is being done?
This is an example of only considering interpretations favorable to your theory. When I read the above passage, it sounds like the fire is just used to burn ceremonial incense. There’s no direct reference to burning bodies. And yet you take it for granted that what was really meant was cremation.
And then there’s this…your theory requires the Tower of Babel to be a historical event rather than a just-so story from mythology. Are you trying to square Egyptian practices with the Bible, or what? You claim they had no religion, but you’re using the idea of God scrambling brains as part of your theory…this is very bizarre.
The rope was 5" tarred hafagrass shaped into 100’ long slings. They used a chain across the pyramid top with links shaped as the glyphs F46- F50 (F50 was the pin to keep them connected). Ropes simply never break if they are properly used and inspected. Part of proper inspection is to examine them after “incidents”. Rope breakage is always a systems failure; a human failure. They had two primary systems on the pyramid and if one went down the other could still keep up with production (or nearly).
The dndndr-boat was remarkably simple and was composed chiefly of two small cedar ( or id) timbers. These were part of framing and designed to be suspended from the top. The 3nw-boat was shaped like the exoskeleton of a grasshopper with a carapace at the top for filling known as the I33.t-sceptre. It was held into place with a very light duty (probably bronze) device. This device wasn’t intended to support the entire loaded counterweight but to simply prevent it from dropping too low as the dndndr-boat was being loaded. If it got too low the increased weight of the rope on the counterweight side with the decreased weight of rope on the load side could cause the counterweight to fall prematurely possibly resulting in injury. This is in the PT or deduced from it. I believe this counterweight was probably pine chiefly. It was on two skis with the ribbing external. It was mostly composed of “short pieces of wood” and was tarred on the inside. A small team waited at the bottom to make quick patches “on the fly”. A second counterweigh was at hand and could quickly be swapped in and attached with the “tie of isis” with which it was attached to the sling. It could be done in under a minute with no delay in operations.
The ropes ran over a device known as the “dm-sceptre” which redirected them. These could be anything from smooth round stones to rollers to bronze pulleys. I believe they were probably 200 lb bronze or copper pulleys because there was one on the counterweight side and two on the dndndr side; one behind the boat on the unloading platform and one before it. This seems to imply something relatively small. The wheel had been in existence 1000 years when construction began around 2800 BC. To say they couldn’t have an even simpler device than a wheel is to say they were stupid or less capable than other people. It’s akin to saying they mustta used ramps.
Most of this is derived from their excellent observations as appear in the PT and deductions based on their primitive capabilities. While they were primitive their science was not. I think when this is all pieced together we’re going to be amazed at the things they could learn and do using simple observation and logic. Logic doesn’t work any longer because our language is confused. Logic has become a “personal” attribute rather than a “cultural” one. What’s logical to me isn’t to you and usually neither of us has any basis in reality for our estimation of “logical”. This is why we need modern science to codify reality through experiment.
This is all quite simple really. It just seems hairbrained and off the wall because we think funny and they didn’t.
Yes. Very very much.
I have very few beliefs and they are things that can’t really be shown to be true with modern knowledge. Indeed, they should really be called axioms because I rarely ponder anything outside these axioms. The first and most important is the exact same one the Egyptians and their ancestors used; reality exists. I suppose this axiom simply led me to a very similar way of thinking as the Egyptians. I am offended by Egyptologists’ continual demeaning of the people because I also take it as axiomatic that all human life has value and is the only thing of true value which is why I believe that the very point of life is to leave the world a better place and have fun. Part of this for most individuals is to understand the past and calling my ancestors names like incapable and stinky footed reflects on all humanity past, present, and future. Humans have little going for us now but someday…
I often feel I have more in common (in thinking) with Egyptians than most people today. At every turn the drifting was very subtle.
It might sound like I envy ancient people but I don’t really. They had a lot of important advantages than today and they were on the right side of evolution but their path was impossible to maintain. We must move beyond the tower of babel. It’s been 4000 years and high time we get started.
You’ll have to cite each one of these assertions. We’re not going to take your word for it.
These too.
And these.
If we’re unable to utilize “logic” to determine truth and accuracy due to our language, then how could we possibly determine that your assertions are true?
So you say, but I’m unconvinced. The pyramids are impressive accomplishments, but modern history and science seem perfectly able to explain their construction, even if many of the details are hazy.
Ropes do break, and no amount of human inspection can stop that. It’s the reason people didn’t trust the ancient invention of an elevator until 1852 and the invention of a safety brake. Each rope failure would have resulted in catastrophe.
It seems harebrained, hairbrained, and off the wall to people who aren’t thinking funny.
Models are truly irrelevant with such simple physics. A caveman could literally do it if he had the tools. As a generalist models are superfluous at best. I did build a couple extremely simple models but not for me but to demonstrate the feasibility for others. Anyone can make a model of such a simple process if they don’t believe it will work. Spray water up onto a platform through a hole and see what you can lift.
As a generalist, if I can’t picture something in my mind then I can’t understand it. If I can picture it, it will work. Models are irrelevant.