Mystery of the Great Pyramid of Giza may have been solved researchers say

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: dashen

I have a couple of questions:

Are the pyramids foundations not above the normal water level of the Nile River ? In order to "float" anything through a canal to their bases would require some kind of lock system.

How did they plug the ends of the canals after they were finished building? You are talking about a large flowing body of water which exerts a lot of pressure on it's banks. Should there not be some very wet sandy areas if the canals were used and not plugged up when no longer needed?

As was noted before, this still does not address the primary question of how these structures were assembled. But that has, and will be, covered in other posts.

or just a counterweight system to lift the blocks off the boats. the weights werent all that crazy for the granite blocks above the kings chamber. considering they got the blocks all the way up there it would be an easy task to lift them a short way up from the water level

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: dashen

I have a couple of questions:

Are the pyramids foundations not above the normal water level of the Nile River ? In order to "float" anything through a canal to their bases would require some kind of lock system.

How did they plug the ends of the canals after they were finished building? You are talking about a large flowing body of water which exerts a lot of pressure on it's banks. Should there not be some very wet sandy areas if the canals were used and not plugged up when no longer needed?

As was noted before, this still does not address the primary question of how these structures were assembled. But that has, and will be, covered in other posts.

or just a counterweight system to lift the blocks off the boats. the weights werent all that crazy for the granite blocks above the kings chamber. considering they got the blocks all the way up there it would be an easy task to lift them a short way up from the water level

And how deep are these canals, as the water is obviously not apparent from the surface. You would think it would have shown up when the annual floods came in. Yet, it seems we only have one record of them. This appears to be akin to saying the pyramids were built as tombs. Some talk but no evidence.

originally posted by: tinymind

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: dashen

I have a couple of questions:

Are the pyramids foundations not above the normal water level of the Nile River ? In order to "float" anything through a canal to their bases would require some kind of lock system.

How did they plug the ends of the canals after they were finished building? You are talking about a large flowing body of water which exerts a lot of pressure on it's banks. Should there not be some very wet sandy areas if the canals were used and not plugged up when no longer needed?

As was noted before, this still does not address the primary question of how these structures were assembled. But that has, and will be, covered in other posts.

or just a counterweight system to lift the blocks off the boats. the weights werent all that crazy for the granite blocks above the kings chamber. considering they got the blocks all the way up there it would be an easy task to lift them a short way up from the water level

And how deep are these canals, as the water is obviously not apparent from the surface. You would think it would have shown up when the annual floods came in. Yet, it seems we only have one record of them. This appears to be akin to saying the pyramids were built as tombs. Some talk but no evidence.

the nile is ever changing, where it is today is not where it was in the past. on top of that these canals were probly filled with rubble and dirt from thousands of years. so no chance of a flood filling it up to be found

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Harte

Thanks for advising Harte.

You're welcome.

It's what I do.

Harte

Crap! My geology professor was right. He said that just because the pyramids seemed too advanced for the time, doesn't mean they were built at the direction of aliens

originally posted by: Harte

Because of holes blown in the side with black powder - done by early Egyptologists - we know for a fact there is plenty of fill in the GP.

But it says "gunpowder" in Vyse's account. I don't think the two were synonymous: I believe that gunpowder was more powerful than black powder ...

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
It is estimated that the workers would have had to set a block every two and a half minutes over a 20 year period......excuse me but, it must have taken longer or it's complete bs?

You can either say that 20 people could place one block in one day, or you can say that 11.340 people can place 576 rocks in one day, or you can do some more math and state that a stone had to be put every 2.5 minute. You can play around with numbers to make them look less and less believable.

And you play with estimates. We don't know how the pyramid is filled inside, we don't know how many people worked on it, for how long and how the work was organized. You can make any theory possible by increasing the number of workers and time they had, and make any theory sound like bs by manipulating those numbers.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Harte

Because of holes blown in the side with black powder - done by early Egyptologists - we know for a fact there is plenty of fill in the GP.

But it says "gunpowder" in Vyse's account. I don't think the two were synonymous: I believe that gunpowder was more powerful than black powder ...

Pardon me, I'm not exactly an aficionado of bullet propellants.
However, I believe that black powder is gunpowder, just not what's used in modern guns.
Today's gunpowder is supposedly smokeless, whereas black powder is smoky.

In Vyse's time, was black powder not used as gunpowder?

I know it was prior to the invention of cartridges.

At any rate, it was used to blow open holes in several places, revealing voids behind the stones that were filled with sand, rubble and great gobs of mortar.

I just read that the term "black powder" was coined in the U.S. to differentiate older types from the new smokeless type.

Not that it matters which was used, but perhaps Vyse, being European, used the gunpowder term because of his nationality.

Harte

originally posted by: iknowyou

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
It is estimated that the workers would have had to set a block every two and a half minutes over a 20 year period......excuse me but, it must have taken longer or it's complete bs?

You can either say that 20 people could place one block in one day, or you can say that 11.340 people can place 576 rocks in one day, or you can do some more math and state that a stone had to be put every 2.5 minute. You can play around with numbers to make them look less and less believable.

And you play with estimates. We don't know how the pyramid is filled inside, we don't know how many people worked on it, for how long and how the work was organized. You can make any theory possible by increasing the number of workers and time they had, and make any theory sound like bs by manipulating those numbers.

Yes, any such manipulation is completely baseless, because the estimate of the number of stones assumes all stones the same size and the GP a solid pyramid made entirely of these normalized stones.

That is, calculating the volume of a pyramid with the GP's height and base area, then dividing that number by the volume of one of these supposedly identical stones yields the stone count estimate used to claim "one stone every two and a half minutes."

If you look into the different estimates of stone counts, they vary widely. One estimate I've seen has the count at well under one million stones.

Harte

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Harte

Because of holes blown in the side with black powder - done by early Egyptologists - we know for a fact there is plenty of fill in the GP.

But it says "gunpowder" in Vyse's account. I don't think the two were synonymous: I believe that gunpowder was more powerful than black powder ...

Gun powder, or powder meant black powder in that context. Later when other types of explosives were made they took on the same name and as Harte noted sometimes added 'smokeless'.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: iknowyou

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
It is estimated that the workers would have had to set a block every two and a half minutes over a 20 year period......excuse me but, it must have taken longer or it's complete bs?

You can either say that 20 people could place one block in one day, or you can say that 11.340 people can place 576 rocks in one day, or you can do some more math and state that a stone had to be put every 2.5 minute. You can play around with numbers to make them look less and less believable.

And you play with estimates. We don't know how the pyramid is filled inside, we don't know how many people worked on it, for how long and how the work was organized. You can make any theory possible by increasing the number of workers and time they had, and make any theory sound like bs by manipulating those numbers.

Yes, any such manipulation is completely baseless, because the estimate of the number of stones assumes all stones the same size and the GP a solid pyramid made entirely of these normalized stones.

That is, calculating the volume of a pyramid with the GP's height and base area, then dividing that number by the volume of one of these supposedly identical stones yields the stone count estimate used to claim "one stone every two and a half minutes."

If you look into the different estimates of stone counts, they vary widely. One estimate I've seen has the count at well under one million stones.

Harte

Yep, I support the 900,000 stone idea. The old 2.3 million estimate was made before the influence of the hill incorporated into the pyramid was fully understood. I've seen a discussion of these different estimates, where they came from and the criteria they used. I'll see if I can find it.

Jews built the pyramids?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: iknowyou

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
It is estimated that the workers would have had to set a block every two and a half minutes over a 20 year period......excuse me but, it must have taken longer or it's complete bs?

You can either say that 20 people could place one block in one day, or you can say that 11.340 people can place 576 rocks in one day, or you can do some more math and state that a stone had to be put every 2.5 minute. You can play around with numbers to make them look less and less believable.

And you play with estimates. We don't know how the pyramid is filled inside, we don't know how many people worked on it, for how long and how the work was organized. You can make any theory possible by increasing the number of workers and time they had, and make any theory sound like bs by manipulating those numbers.

Yes, any such manipulation is completely baseless, because the estimate of the number of stones assumes all stones the same size and the GP a solid pyramid made entirely of these normalized stones.

That is, calculating the volume of a pyramid with the GP's height and base area, then dividing that number by the volume of one of these supposedly identical stones yields the stone count estimate used to claim "one stone every two and a half minutes."

If you look into the different estimates of stone counts, they vary widely. One estimate I've seen has the count at well under one million stones.

Harte

Yep, I support the 900,000 stone idea. The old 2.3 million estimate was made before the influence of the hill incorporated into the pyramid was fully understood. I've seen a discussion of these different estimates, where they came from and the criteria they used. I'll see if I can find it.

Probably the same one I saw. Haven't looked for it since.

Harte

originally posted by: libertytoall
Jews built the pyramids?

Unlikely, we wouldve turned them into condos.

originally posted by: libertytoall
Jews built the pyramids?

Most probably not, as they may not have existed as a distinct group then. AFAWCT it was Egyptians using corvee labour during the flood periods and aiding experts who worked all year.

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: libertytoall
Jews built the pyramids?

Unlikely, we wouldve turned them into condos.

Well yeah, but I didn't want to say that in public

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: iknowyou

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
It is estimated that the workers would have had to set a block every two and a half minutes over a 20 year period......excuse me but, it must have taken longer or it's complete bs?

You can either say that 20 people could place one block in one day, or you can say that 11.340 people can place 576 rocks in one day, or you can do some more math and state that a stone had to be put every 2.5 minute. You can play around with numbers to make them look less and less believable.

And you play with estimates. We don't know how the pyramid is filled inside, we don't know how many people worked on it, for how long and how the work was organized. You can make any theory possible by increasing the number of workers and time they had, and make any theory sound like bs by manipulating those numbers.

Yes, any such manipulation is completely baseless, because the estimate of the number of stones assumes all stones the same size and the GP a solid pyramid made entirely of these normalized stones.

That is, calculating the volume of a pyramid with the GP's height and base area, then dividing that number by the volume of one of these supposedly identical stones yields the stone count estimate used to claim "one stone every two and a half minutes."

If you look into the different estimates of stone counts, they vary widely. One estimate I've seen has the count at well under one million stones.

Harte

Yep, I support the 900,000 stone idea. The old 2.3 million estimate was made before the influence of the hill incorporated into the pyramid was fully understood. I've seen a discussion of these different estimates, where they came from and the criteria they used. I'll see if I can find it.

Probably the same one I saw. Haven't looked for it since.

Harte

Edited to add:

This seems to be it:

books.google.com... N7O7LmOH_MOT8IkUcoqSY3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgqsqdm8nWAhVQ_mMKHQB2DV0Q6AEIOTAH#v=onepage&q=original%202%20million%20block%20estimate%20great%20pyram id&f=false

originally posted by: Maximum
Crap! My geology professor was right. He said that just because the pyramids seemed too advanced for the time, doesn't mean they were built at the direction of aliens

And if he'd been an archaeology professor, he would have pointed out that they weren't too advanced for the time. Everything, from the alignment to the quarrying to building pyramids (Sneferu) had been done in the previous generations. Khufu was the son of one of the most energetic pyramid builders (three, and possibly four.)

originally posted by: libertytoall
Jews built the pyramids?

Nope. Farmers in the flood season (Corvee labor) and a smaller full-time staff of professional tradesmen. Some of the quarrying may have been done by convicted criminals. Pyramids were built some 1500 years before Judaism rises.

a reply to: Byrd

But I saw a movie..

And...

The Bible...

And...