[QUOTE=Peter Morris’ link]
In carrying on the work, leaves of papyrus, or paper, inscribed with certain characters were placed under the stones prepared in the quarries; and upon being struck, the blocks were moved each time the distance of a bowshot (about one hundred and fifty cubits) and so by degrees arrived at the pyramids.
[/quote]
If you look at the quote like a con-noisier of fine woo, you will see that it describes an incantation written on paper, which moves the slab all magick-like. Unfortunately, Egyptian magick was only strong enough to move the slabs 260 feet at a throw.
Oxen and yokes aplenty. Oxen can get to really like pulling heavy things, and a few pairs would make light work of a 5000 lb block.
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS NUMBER??? You are obviously flailing, but when you cannot convince others you are right, you shouldn’t quadruple-down with an obviously made-up number. I honestly, as a bit of an internet “friend,” recommend you give up and seek help before you dig yourself so deep in your world of fantasy and lies that you can never find your way out. I’m sure your family would appreciate it, too.
CO2 geysers are born deep under the earth under intense pressure. The water is cold and cold water does absorb more gasses like CO2 than warm water. The water becomes saturated in CO2 if enough is present and the mixture of water and CO2 is very acidic. It is this that causes the water (carbonic acid) to become saturated in the minerals it’s exposed to. The water in this state holds vast quantities of calcium carbonate unlike regular water.
When the water approaches the surface it fizzes up because without pressure to hold the CO2 in solution it will come out and this is the cause of the eruption. With large amounts of CO2 coming out of solution the water can no longer hold much calcium carbonate so it begins depositing it where the geyser meets the air causing formation of a conically shaped stone called the ben ben. The water also begins warming ands this forces more of the CO2 out of solution causing more deposition of material forming the mound (primeval)(mound of creation) around the ben ben. When the water is degassed there is no longer an appreciable amount of minerals in solution. But these minerals were sufficient to stain the bottom third 162’ 6" red. Even the heiroglyph for “pyramid” has the bottom third red.
This was all very well understood by the ancients. Their understanding was different than ours but it was still correct. It was based on logic and observation and they could use theory to apply to other things. Science is merely a tool to learn about nature and its metaphysics determines the types of things that can be understood and the things that are learned. You don’t use a sledge hammer for a shovel and a shovel makes a poor sledgehammer. Our science is like the hammer. Their’s the shovel.
I hate to break this to you but you quit making sense.
I said what you see is evidence and you apparently are disputing this. There is the ruins of a building on the east side of G1 and this is a fact. With nothing but the foundation Egyptologists pronounced it a “mortuary temple”. Egyptologists pronounce almost all the ruins as serving a religious or magical function and this is a fact. It is also a fact that there’s no evidence to support these assumptions. No matter what they were though they are still there. They exist (at least in ruins) and there’s no need to invoke aliens, magic, or superstition to observe the actual physical evidence. This physical evidence all supports my theory. The valleytemple was really the port that transshipped stones to the masons shop at the base of the pyramid and from here they were whisked straight up the side just like every other stone in every great pyramid. If you want to speculate on what force pulled them straight up the side then fine but ramps remain debunked. I believe it was water filled counterweights that did all the heavy lifting. This is what the physical, historical, cultural, and logical evidence suggests. They spoke of it and drew pictures of it but we can’t see it from our perspective. But the evidence still exists. It’s right in front of our eyes. The water collection deviceand port were the first thinbgs built because boith were needed to build a pyramid. This agrees with the ALL the evidence and the water was funneled right to the cliff face where the so called ramps actually point. This is physical evidence just as the extended cliff face for the western cliff face counterweight is real and tangible as well as a canal that feeds it. Even the “Overseer of Canals” is buried right on site.
There is no evidence to support ramps. I can’t say this any more simply. No Egyptologists has ever come up withg any evidence whatsoever of any type that any stone was ever lifted on a great pyramid with ramps. The evidence says categorically that stones were lifted one step at a time.
I’m not certain what you are misunderstanding here.
The water that was the geyser was carbonated remotely to the pyramid. It wasn’t merely down from where it sprayed that it was carbonated but many miles to the south.
The question is how did they lift the stones to build the pyramids.
This is simple reverse engineering. You look at what’s there and based on THAT evidence alone you determine how it was done.
I wasn’t able to successfully reverse engineer the pyramid where many people before me failed because I’m smarter. I succeeded because I never made the assumptrion that the builders were stinky footed bumpkins. I understand what they said and it told me where to look. It told me how to interpret the vast amount of evidence that survives.
I hgave proven beyond any doubt that they didn’t “mustta used ramps”. I’ve shown a far easier way to lift thestones and this easier way is very well evidenced on all the great pyramids. Additionally I debunked ramps because even after solving how it was done people contuinued to say it mustta been ramps. For good measure I torpedoed the “cultural context” claim of Egyptology by simply observing that the word “ramp” is unattested from the great pyramid building age.
I believe in the future this will be about the time people consider my theory “proven”. Geysers aren’t really a done deal yet but there was water at altitude by some means. Even getting water at the nbase of the pyramid by any means is very remarkable for a desert. It’s this that is causing all the new hypotheses about building to include water.
What you write here makes no sense. After writing about how the Egyptians were capable (according to your own words) of drilling to get the geyser going now you move it away from the pyramid, that does not decrease the complexity, but you are only moving the problem to a new location, there is no way your scheme makes sense if you can not point to the plausible mechanics that would prevent many structures involved in the process from fizzing away. Likewise, your solution with natron actually gives you more problems.
You see what happens when you follow an idea that has no good scientific support? Eventually the contradictions and increases in complexity pile up so much as to make it unlikely and discredited even among the woo woo followers (as noticed, the cranks you cited do not mention geysers, but alien technology or other mumbo jumbo). As it happens the ideas others have of using water from the Nile instead of a soda geyser to move the stones make more sense than the one you have. The point is that unless you are willing to accept that you are wrong (and this includes how wrong you are on many other items like in your stance on modelling) you will not be able to get ahead of the pack of the ones that propose the use of just plain water, they are still have way over the top ideas, but they do not depend on workers enjoying Mojitos.
Merrer’s Diary just discovered a few years ago makes some strong implications about stone hjhandling at Giza. One implication is that thew Giza port was tiny and could accomodate, perhaps, only a single ship at a time. Ships with stones were marshalled on “nearby” island. It is highly improbable they were cut in the quarry so they were probably cut on site as evidenced by numerous cut marks in the floor of the Great Saw Palace (mortuary temple). There were hundreds of thousands of saw cuts and many were in solid granite. There were the equivalent of a couple million saw cuts through about four square feet of tura limestone. I don’t really know the Great Saw Palace existed right where the physical and cultural evidence points but it’s a fine place to start looking. Some cuts were definitely made on the pyramid but most were likely made in what we’d call the mason’s shop.
Egyptologists are just invoking beliefs and assumptions calling it a mortuary temple. Later Egyptians had a mortuary temple so Egyptologists already assumed nothing ever changed.
This is utterance #310 and, no, it makes no sense in context except as the blathering of sunaddled bumpkins. It does make sense literally however just as they all do. The dead king is being transmogrified into the geyser. He was responsible for all things in life and became these things in death. N becomes the stone of the pyramid (horus) and as such he is entreating the ferryman to bring him the boat that flies up and alights so the pyramid can be completed.
Your "experiment has a rope bending 180 degrees over a surface that wasn’t designed for the purpose. The pyramid builder’s rope bent only 140 degrees over surfaces specifically made for the purpose.
Yes. There is extensive evidence of using quantities of natron.
1024a. His name lives on account of natron-offerings and he is divine.
1293c. which come for thee out of thy chapel of natron, which were filled for thee in the natron lake,
849c. who is being purified by smn (-natron) and by bd (-natron),
864c. thy water from Elephantiné, thy natron from ’Irw,
864d. thy ḥsmn (natron) from the Oxyrhynchus nome, thine incense from Nubia.
1329d. [thy mouth] is opened by the tt.wi which are before the house of natron;
1251b. “the chapter of natron” is recited for thee.
I can explain this next one but all you really need to do is read it;
24a. To say: Osiris N., take to thyself this thy libation, which is offered to thee by Horus,
24b. in thy name of “He who is come from the Cataract”; take to thyself the efflux (sweat) which goes forth from thee.
24c. Horus has made me assemble for thee the gods from every place to which thou goest.
24d. Horus has made me count (for) thee the children of Horus even to the place where thou wast drowned.
25a. Osiris N., take to thyself thy natron, that thou mayest be divine.
25b. Nut has made thee to be as a god to thine enemy (or, in spite of thee) in thy name of “god.”
25c. Ḥrnp.wi recognizes thee, for thou art made young in thy name of “Fresh water.”
“Cataract” is a poor translation here. “Cool watery region” or “waters of the abyss” come closer.
Let me try again. Sometimes I almost wish we still spoke the ancient language since some concepts are much more easily stated in it.
The carbonated water that sprayed out of the geyser became carbonated somewhere else. It traveled underground through caves and fissures to reach the surface at Giza and in the “Land of Rainbows”. The water that sprayed at Giza became carbonated far away.
You won’t climb a 7% grade? Dude, the US Americans with Disabilities Act allows a grade up to 8.3% for hand-powered wheelchairs! Are you more crippled than a guy in a wheelchair?
“The bizarre red, white, and yellow mineral encrustations here are puzzling, and I cannot explain them. I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers.”
Are you talking about the diary of Merrer and the Wadi al-Jarf?? Because I hate to break this to you, but that port was on the Red Sea, not by the pyramid. Merrer was an official involved in building the pyramid, but the diary pointed to a port that was no where near the Giza plateau. This is yet another case of you babbling bullshit that is seemingly not connected to anything.
Reverse engineering isn’t simple. You have no idea what you are talking about, yet again. If you haven’t built a physical model and demonstrated that your model works (and it won’t) you have nothing.
[QUOTE=cladking]
I hate to break this to you but you quit making sense.
[/QUOTE]
This is perhaps one of the most ironic statements I’ve ever seen. Congratulations…you’ve broken my industrial strength SDMB irony meter…and I had it at the absolute highest setting to view this thread in all it’s majesty!
As I’ve said, repeating a claim over and over is not evidence. You’ve been shown that there is in fact evidence of ramps. You’ve been shown how archeologists have modeled ramps, how they have BUILT the fucking things to test, and how they have been used in places other than Egypt. You continue to dispute this, but, frankly, your assertions are meaningless at this point because you refuse to acknowledge any of it and insist that there is no evidence. There is no spoon, you continue to say…but this isn’t a movie and we aren’t in the Matrix. There IS a fucking spoon, and your refusal to acknowledge it even for discussion or to acknowledge the actual points and evidence shown to you just makes you look like a child denying reality.
In addition, a point you don’t seem to get is that even if ramps weren’t used by the Egyptians it doesn’t make YOUR ridiculous theory more plausible. Every time evidence is shown to you why your theory won’t or can’t work (and the evidence has been legion at this point from basically the entire spectrum of science) you either make up some new shit, handwave or start back with babbling woo at us from ancient Egyptian text that you interpret to say whatever it is you want it to say that supports your crazy world view.
you want to explain for us how you get a rope to “bend” at 180 degrees on a peaked roof?
you want to show the “140 degree” of the pyramid? (which to my understanding are pretty close to 45 degree slopes which would be 135 as an external angle) - if you’re trying to refer to the angle at the peak - you’re still wrong. If you’re trying to describe the angle over the peak - you’re still wrong.
FOr example - a roof with a 38 degree rise would equal 104 degrees on the inside of the peak. and an external angle of 142 degrees (at bottom).
Secondly - the experiment is to show you the mechanical advantage of a pulley - which you stated they don’t have any.
Its also meant to show you that pulling weights over a physical surface in the manner you describe* would damage ropes (even modern ones) - quite quickly - and that there would be evidence left behind - and this would be even with a small weight as described.
Do you even think any of this thru before you post such nonsense?
and now you’ve added another assertion that you cannot back up - that the “surfaces” were made for the purpose. - Don’t suppose you have a cite for any of that, right?
