Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The greatest pyramids ever?
#1
http://www.newser.com/story/171085/have-...inted.html
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#2
[Image: 12036753_698886303575384_333189335195579...e=56D37496]
Reply
#3
UNILAD Wrote:Most accurate pie chart ever.
[Image: 12670583_2136116023078112_57194926630949...e=57247D06]
Reply
#4
We Finally Know How The Pyramids Were Made!


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
Amazing. There was a comic-book drawing to show how it was done, and the super-smart guys missed it.

However, dragging huge stone blocks on a sled over sand, wet or not, was not too easy. Maybe the aliens clued them in on the water thing.
Reply
#6
(02-05-2016, 09:04 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Amazing. There was a comic-book drawing to show how it was done, and the super-smart guys missed it.

However, dragging huge stone blocks on a sled over sand, wet or not, was not too easy. Maybe the aliens clued them in on the water thing.

The interesting, and telling, thing about all this is that the ancient Egyptian art clearly shows a person pouring fluid(almost certainly water)on to the pathway in front of the sled, which is also shown in the art. And the exact procedure was in front of everyone's eyes all along, but science just had to make it more complicated. Gah

Of course, there is far more to building a pyramid than just moving the stones. S5

[Image: main-qimg-94ed3c00f323601955e138ad59b3fa..._webp=true]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
(02-05-2016, 10:42 PM)John L Wrote: ...but science just had to make it more complicated. Gah
The hardest thing would be the initial pull to overcome inertia and convert it to momentum. Once the sled is moving it is easier to keep it going, and the initial tug is probably over dry ground.
Reply
#8
By going through the available information on pyramid building, I came across this latest theory on how they were constructed. And I have to say that it has an awful lot going for it: with one exception. The person presenting this idea, is anything but an academic, which means he will be 'poo-pooed' out of hand, as not being smart, or educated enough to participate in the debate. However, he is a construction manager, and what is pyramid building all about?

What's most interesting is that it lends credence to one of the best philosophical maxims around: Occam's razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

In other words, " The simplest explanation is usually the right one." There have been so many questions about how they were constructed so timely, and with such precision that millions are convinced that they could only have been made with the help of Ancient Aliens, and all sorts of sophisticated modern techniques. But the simplest one would naturally involve Water. After all, ancient Egyptians used the Nile for practically everything. Their lives depended on it, so they would naturally be experts in the science of hydrolics. Obviously, using water to build anything would be first and foremost on their minds. And modern civilization would naturally think of practically everything else.

That's why only a construction expert would go for this approach, instead of an academic's maze of ideas. And that's why I Really Like It! The Man's name is Chris Massey, and the name of the book is "Pyramids of Egypt: How Were They Really Built?"

[Image: 51z61u2nMxL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg]



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
Isn't it remarkable how such simple methods could have been lost over the centuries? It must have been the result of economic inability to support such large scale projects, and the lack of cultural impetus driving it. It would only take one generation to lose knowledge of it in a society that uses word of mouth for everything.

Now, how does this jive with the comic book drawings of wetting the sand while blocks are dragged across the sand?
Reply
#10
(02-06-2016, 08:27 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Isn't it remarkable how such simple methods could have been lost over the centuries? It must have been the result of economic inability to support such large scale projects, and the lack of cultural impetus driving it. It would only take one generation to lose knowledge of it in a society that uses word of mouth for everything.

Now, how does this jive with the comic book drawings of wetting the sand while blocks are dragged across the sand?

I keep listening to all these narrators on History Channel, and Science Channel, as they discuss ancient civilizations. And most of the time they gush over everything the Chinese discovered, and how advanced they were. But if they, or the Egyptians, or Rome, etc., were so advanced, why didn't all of their discoveries take off and enrich the world?

The answer is very simple: back then there was no 'Economic Liberty', which allowed for the rise of a middle class. Also, there were no patent laws designed to pay enterprising people, thus enriching themselves. Everything back then were totalitarian regimes, and the common man was not entitled to enjoy the wealth that come along with economic self-enrichment.

Without economic Liberty, civilization is hindered to a crawl at best.

Incidentally, what comic book drawings are you talking about?



Here's something that most likely allowed for the movement of stone blocks to the pyramid site. Why use all the grunt work loading and unloading them? Just tie a boat around each, and when the Nile floods three months of every year, just float them down river and untie them, returning back for another round later. Then it is possible to use simple mechanisms to move the blocks into position. Obviously the Egyptians used simple machines that gave them a real mechanical advantage.

[Image: animsplaw.gif]

[Image: 261abd8f95f5.gif]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
I don't think they used water tunel to move stones up to the top of the pyramid. Such device would be far too difficult to build with their primitive technology. To perform an experiment with plastic tubes on a few meters is easy. But Egyptians had no plastic, no welding system and no rubber. They may have known concrete, but even this wouldn't be enough to build a water elevator.
The reason is very simple: Pressure. Water pressure would be way too high to be contained. Concrete not reinforced with an iron mesh would never hold its own weight and that of the water.
Even with current technologies it would be a challenge. This guy has never made plumber work in his life, as I can see.
And the idea of moving all the water with bucket chains is ludicrous. Obviousely he has no mathematical notion of volumes and how many gallons or liters this construction represents. It's like a thousand swimming pools. Now try to fill one swimming pool with buckets!
And I'm not even considering the ridiculous bassin he plans on the pyramid.
He is also grossly underestimating the volume of the floaters needed to lift the stones. The section of the water elevator should be much larger than he suggests. Making it even less probable.

IMO the pyramids were made with realy simple technologies, rolling things on timber. Their technology was too primitive to realize sophisiticated devices.
The pyramids are basic accumulation of stone, starting from bottom up. It's very straight forward and not complicated at all.
Reply
#12
Fred, I agree that the tunnel concept, from harbor, all the way to the top of the pyramid, is not possible. However, the use of sluice gates is very doable. On his Twitter page, where he showed the modified concept of sluice gates, I commented about this and the possibility of the Archimedes Screw having been invented before Archimedes.

   

Here's what I wrote:

Quote: Chris, that is an excellent idea, and would be far more practical than using the enclosed tunnel/tube idea. There would have to be far more structural integrity with that approach, plus keeping it sealed long term would be a royal pain, requiring continual preventive maintenance. With this approach, each step could be added as the pyramid facing increased in height. Now, there is one problem that this type of sluice gate system presents to the ancient builders. Water would have to be available at a higher elevation to be used to bring the lower level up to the higher one. There are all sorts of mechanical methods for moving water to higher elevations. Water wheels would work, but that would require many wheels. Here's a thought: perhaps Archemedes really didn't invent the "screw" after all. I would look through Egyptian art, to see if there was any chance of an Archemedes Screw appearing in some obscure art somewhere. [Image: Archimedes_screw.JPG]

Is the 'screw' concept was really used back then, before Archimedes, then huge amounts of water could be moved up to the top of the pyramid and allowed to flow downward, allowing the sluice system to work easily. Remember the sluice system is thousands of years old and is one of the foundations to irrigation and canal movement. This system is almost certainly older than any written language.

Now, if anyone can find the 'screw' system appearing in any early Egyptian art, you can bet your 'backside' that it was used in pyramid building. And since the actual meaning of the use of pouring water in front of sleds, was not recognized for many decades, until just recently, all it would require is just one picture loosely resembling a small cylinder with a crank at the top being used. That would be the final proof of the fact that Archimedes was just expanding on an earlier concept.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#13
The guy did the math on lifting water. A simple bucket brigade of people lifting water a few feet to the next person in line would get more than enough water in a very short time.

The main drawback would be the water tubes and sluices. Sand doesn't work too well, and stone without gaskets of some kind would leak. Maybe wax in all the joints? However it would be easier to build such a tube using stone than the huge slope of sand for dragging the bloicks.
Reply
#14
Fred, here's what I mean about the 'screw' principle for raising water, not really being Archimedes' invention.

Quote:The invention of the water screw is credited to the Greek polymath Archimedes of Syracuse in the 3rd century BC.[1] A cuneiform inscription of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (704 - 681BC) has been interpreted by Stephanie Dalley[3] to describe the casting of water screws in bronze some 350 years earlier. This is consistent with the classical author Strabo who describes the Hanging Gardens as watered by screws. A contrary view is expressed by Dalley and Oleson in an earlier review.[2] The German engineer Konrad Kyeser, in his Bellifortis (1405), equips the Archimedes' screw with a crank mechanism. This mechanism soon replaced the ancient practice of working the pipe by treading.[4]

Here's the chapter in Stephanie's book, "The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced". Its entitled "Three Pictures, and Archimedes". I never considered before that the 'screw' principle may not really have been the brainchild of Archimedes, but the more I delve into it, the more I believe it was far older than him.

Here's Dr. Dalley's peer reviewed position paper on this, as it appeared in "Technology and Culture".

Sennacherib, Archimedes, and the Water Screw: The Context of Invention in the Ancient World
Stephanie Dalley and John Peter Oleson
Technology and Culture
Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 1-26

This picture is within the position paper. Note that there is no crank, but rather ribbing that would be used by people turning the tube.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkSSv1uk2tx3SbDMlRw-1...akvcOL1aSA]

Or how about this comparison of two doable systems for raising the water.

A Screw Pump vs. a Chain Pump


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#15
(02-08-2016, 09:09 PM)WmLambert Wrote: The guy did the math on lifting water. A simple bucket brigade of people lifting water a few feet to the next person in line would get more than enough water in a very short time.

The main drawback would be the water tubes and sluices. Sand doesn't work too well, and stone without gaskets of some kind would leak. Maybe wax in all the joints? However it would be easier to build such a tube using stone than the huge slope of sand for dragging the bloicks.

You didn't take the time to study all the available information Bill. The Sluices would replace the tube system. Go back and look at all of the posts. Sluices are the simplest and easiest system to use. They have been used for elevated movement for thousands of years.

And instead of using bladders and skins for air sacks, it is far easier to use boats to carry the stones underneath them, just as shown in the little video posted above. Just tie the stone to the bottom of the boat, and then float the boat and move it upward through sluices.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#16
Here's more from Dr. Stephanie Dalley on the "pre-Archimedes" water screw.





I haven't seen this yet, but it should hold some valuable information about how water was elevated, Before Archimedes.

Secrets of the Dead The Lost Gardens of Babylon PBS Documentary



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
And there is this, from"The Story of the Pump, and Its Relatives", by Bernard M. Eubanks, page 4-5.

"Ordinarily the 'screw' shouldn't be put in with the 'ancient' water lifters. The reason I am doing so is that I think Archimedes got his idea from the Egyptian screw, called 'cochleon'. It dates back to ancient. It was a very simple gadget, consisting of a tube wrapped spirally around a long tapered core. The difference was that the Egyptians used a hollow tube made of lead, hide, or leather, instead of a screw, and did not need a cylinder to run it through. Its largest diameter was at the bottom and was so arranged that as it was turned, the water entered the tube at the bottom, and was carried to the outlet at the top.

Although the water was carried up, it was running down all the time. Now you figure that one out. They did. The 'screws' were all operated at an angle, not perpendicular."


.png   Cochleon screw.png (Size: 55.8 KB / Downloads: 10)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#18
The sluice system is far more realistic and it's possible that they used it to carry stones up to the base of the pyramid. From the base to the upper levels, I have some doubts.

All these projections are underestimating the volume and the size of the floating device used to carry the stones in water, wether it be skin bag or boat. In my estimates, each sluice step should be at least 10 meters long and 5 meters large (multilpy roughly by 3 for "feet") and 3 metters deep. And they would have to build dozens of such sluices and fill them with water constantly.

So the question is what is easier to do? Building these sluice stairs and the massive constructions underneath to hold them or the pyramid itself?
I think a pyramid would be easier to build. If they had build suices climbing that high they would have let them as it would have been more impressive than the actual pyramids or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. (What about going to heaven on a boat?)
It would be at least twice the work.

And this too is crazy: Why the Hanging Gardens of Babylon would not have existed, just because she found textes of other gardens in Nineveh? The Gardens of Babylon where part of the Palace. Their supposed location is known. Remnants couldn't be found because basicaly nothing's left. The highest Zigurat ever build has also disapeared and is now a hole with palmtrees.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)