Atlanteans and The pyramids

originally posted by: brandonforsyth11
But I also think we need to be open to the idea that maybe this pyramid wasn’t built for a tomb, as it has so many
Inconsistencies to a normal tomb.

a reply to: Byrd

What are some of these many inconsistencies it has with other pyramid tombs?

Harte

originally posted by: brandonforsyth11
There is amazing mathematical engineering in the pyramid, look at the sheer size of it, we would struggle in today’s
Society to build a replica, and we have huge cranes today!

The only thing that holds us back is the cost. We've built a replica out of glass and concrete - the Luxor Las Vegas took less than one year to build and is the size of the Red Pyramid (a little bit smaller than the GP, but they could have built it to that size if they wanted.) The Hoover Dam is far more complex.

Please study the maths on the pyramid and come back to me and tell me that it isn’t incredible what they did with the resources they had and the maths that went into building it. If you come back to me saying it’s not then you must have the mathematical ability of Leonhard Euler!

Since Euler could add, subtract, multiply, and divide, we have the same mathematical ability (not really, but...) All you need is to measure the length and width and then determine the slope. They built three or four pyramids before the one at Giza and had a good idea of what slope was needed (in fact, the slope on the Red Pyramid changed because of instability.)

So, the math is found in the Ebers Mathematical Papyrus which (explicitly) has the ancient Egyptian formulas that they used for pyramid dimensions. Note that they're doing it by adding and subtracting. We moderns do it more quickly with some basic algebra.

I got the job through one of my online professors as I studied it “distance learning”.
He only does it part time, as he owns the company and only works 6 months of the year. He keeps quiet on his dark side of archaeology ha! That’s why I was offered a job by him because I think similarly to him, and you don’t get many studying a degree anymore that are so open minded to any explanation “other than aliens “ that’s one thing I think makes a laughing stock of the pseudoarchaeology community.

Mmmkay.

Also I think you need to read the dig reports! There has not been a mummy recovered from the Pyramids but they put this down to grave robbers over the years. Which I’m fine with because that’s 4000 years of potential robbers. The Egyptians where even grave robbers themselves checkout the papyrus on Ramses IV tomb robbery...

Actually, they've found mummy parts in some pyramids and in 2009 the mummy of a queen of the 6th dynasty in a pyramid (so the same timeframe as the Pyramid Texts and about 200 years after Khufu.

Plus...
In addition, mummy parts have been found aplenty, among them:
- a mummified foot in the pyramid of Djoser
- a right arm, skull fragments, and various other bones in the pyramid of Unas
- an arm and shoulder in the pyramid of Teti
- fragments of a mummy in the pyramid of Pepi I
- mummy wrappings in the pyramid of Pepy II
- charred bones in the pyramid of Amenemhet III
- a skeleton of a young woman in sarcophagus in the center satellite pyramid of Menkaure

And ancient writers claimed that they found mummies in the pyramids when they went in after loot. So, in the 1400's there's Al-Maqrizi's statement that when the pyramids were first opened they found sarcophagi with “closed with lids of stone which, once removed, let one see within them a man lying on his back, perfectly preserved and dried and on whose flesh is still visible the hair.”

originally posted by: brandonforsyth11
But I also think we need to be open to the idea that maybe this pyramid wasn’t built for a tomb, as it has so many
Inconsistencies to a normal tomb.

a reply to: Byrd

I'll bite... what inconsistencies?

And what are you calling a "normal tomb?" The features of the chambers are quite similar to other pyramids (including the corbel chambers ... G1 was not the first place they appear) and are even similar to the much older mastaba tombs of the royals and Djoser's step pyramid.

I clearly meant the Giza Pyramids # me 🙈

a reply to: Byrd

Like I said in my post on the other thread I’ll post all my findings on here Saturday and everyone can get a clearer picture of what I’m trying to say and the information and research I have behind it


a reply to: Byrd

What about this ?
www.scribd.com... re-3rd-Edition-2011

A long read but interesting to say the least .....

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Byrd


Okay, first of all (and you have to get your head around this), what "makes sense" to us is not necessarily what someone who lived 5,000 years ago in a different country under different laws and a different type of government and a different religion (belief system) would think makes sense.

Okay, now start from that "clean slate" bit.

The problem with the "nothing about it needs to make sense because they were different" argument is that literally anything you want to put in the story will pass that test.

It's a blank check.

And as to the (frequently answered) questions about cartouches, etc, (sorry if I sound jaded) yes, they're there. If there had been a painted and plastered wall inside the tomb, it was destroyed long ago. But there's more than just the three pyramids on the plateau. There's temples and tombs and there are walls enclosing each of the pyramids and the kings' names are found there. Khufu's is found on temples inside the enclosure that circles his pyramids.

In addition to that, the names were recorded in ancient history (Herodotus notes the names, in fact -and even mentions that there were (in his time, 500 BC) records of how much food was given each day to the pyramid workers )

Yeah....

And later on in that very same passage:

" Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me): and she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length.
This Cheops, the Egyptians said, reigned fifty years; and after he was dead his brother Chephren succeeded to the kingdom."

So... do you honestly believe the pharaoh's daughter got the bricks for the smaller pyramid by turning tricks?

One stone per trick? That is an awful lot of tricks.

a reply to: brandonforsyth11

While Im vaguely open to the possibility that Atlantis actually existed some time, in some form. The word Atlantis has always been my warning-sign when reading any text, book or article, and I often just stop reading at that very word.

Theories are like rounding numbers in maths. You cant round off too many times with too few known variables. You always get a crappy result.

Thats why ppl with theories start with an exciting idea, and end up with some theory about Marsians buildning the Eiffel Tower.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Byrd


Okay, first of all (and you have to get your head around this), what "makes sense" to us is not necessarily what someone who lived 5,000 years ago in a different country under different laws and a different type of government and a different religion (belief system) would think makes sense.

Okay, now start from that "clean slate" bit.

The problem with the "nothing about it needs to make sense because they were different" argument is that literally anything you want to put in the story will pass that test.

It's a blank check.

Sure. If you choose to ignore all the actual evidence we have.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousSo... do you honestly believe the pharaoh's daughter got the bricks for the smaller pyramid by turning tricks?

One stone per trick? That is an awful lot of tricks.

IMO, a poor choice of references. But there exists other evidence of how and what the pyramid-building workers were fed.

Of course, you can choose to ignore that too, but it doesn't invalidate it.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Byrd


Okay, first of all (and you have to get your head around this), what "makes sense" to us is not necessarily what someone who lived 5,000 years ago in a different country under different laws and a different type of government and a different religion (belief system) would think makes sense.

Okay, now start from that "clean slate" bit.

The problem with the "nothing about it needs to make sense because they were different" argument is that literally anything you want to put in the story will pass that test.

It's a blank check.

Sure. If you choose to ignore all the actual evidence we have.

There is no evidence that the three shafts in the Great Pyramid were of any particular interest to their religion. Nor is there very much useful evidence of any of the other interesting features meant anything. The lack of writing inside the Great Pyramid is quite surprising, though, because you would think it would be everywhere if the priests had anything to say about it.

Their religion was just like modern religion in that its ideas were all over the place and often self contradictory when you compare different sources.

This leaves open the possibility that literally ANYTYHING you find in a pyramid MIGHT have meant something. But makes it impossible to be certain of it.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousSo... do you honestly believe the pharaoh's daughter got the bricks for the smaller pyramid by turning tricks?

One stone per trick? That is an awful lot of tricks.

IMO, a poor choice of references. But there exists other evidence of how and what the pyramid-building workers were fed.

Of course, you can choose to ignore that too, but it doesn't invalidate it.

Harte

The problem is that the official story uses just as much cherry picking of the data as do most of the fringe theories.

Contradictory evidence is simply ignored. Supporting evidence is often used even when it is clear the text is quite embellished.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Byrd


Okay, first of all (and you have to get your head around this), what "makes sense" to us is not necessarily what someone who lived 5,000 years ago in a different country under different laws and a different type of government and a different religion (belief system) would think makes sense.

Okay, now start from that "clean slate" bit.

The problem with the "nothing about it needs to make sense because they were different" argument is that literally anything you want to put in the story will pass that test.

It's a blank check.

Sure. If you choose to ignore all the actual evidence we have.

There is no evidence that the three shafts in the Great Pyramid were of any particular interest to their religion. Nor is there very much useful evidence of any of the other interesting features meant anything. The lack of writing inside the Great Pyramid is quite surprising, though, because you would think it would be everywhere if the priests had anything to say about it.

Their religion was just like modern religion in that its ideas were all over the place and often self contradictory when you compare different sources.

This leaves open the possibility that literally ANYTYHING you find in a pyramid MIGHT have meant something. But makes it impossible to be certain of it.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousSo... do you honestly believe the pharaoh's daughter got the bricks for the smaller pyramid by turning tricks?

One stone per trick? That is an awful lot of tricks.

IMO, a poor choice of references. But there exists other evidence of how and what the pyramid-building workers were fed.

Of course, you can choose to ignore that too, but it doesn't invalidate it.

Harte

The problem is that the official story uses just as much cherry picking of the data as do most of the fringe theories.

Contradictory evidence is simply ignored. Supporting evidence is often used even when it is clear the text is quite embellished.

Contradictory evidence is not ignored.
Perhaps you don't know that formerly the Giza Pyramids had been presumed to be at least a thousand years older than we currently know.
Contradictory evidence resulted in that redating.
Please provide some contradictory evidence that is currently being ignored.

Harte

OP: take a look at Graham Hancock’s work for another perspective on how fully formed civilizations sprung up around the world after the Younger Dryas period. He also talks about commonalities and astronomical alignments in ancient megalithic structures.
The Sphinx was actually theorized to be a lion originally, which combined with its orientation suggests it was built during the age of Leo (the lion), which is one of many references to the 26,000 year cycle of the procession of the equinoxes built into the great pyramid and other structures on the Giza plateau.

Byrd: since you seem to be the defender of orthodox Egyptology in this thread, what’s your explanation for the fact that the largest and most precisely built structures of ancient Egypt are the oldest? Egypt was a civilization that seemed to appear out of nowhere with a system of writing and building techniques that declined over the centuries, rather than being improved upon, which doesn’t really fit with the accepted version of history. How did we go from the great pyramid to the ‘bent’ pyramid? Why are massive blocks like the ones forming the base of the great pyramid not used in later megaliths?

originally posted by: ApisM
Byrd: since you seem to be the defender of orthodox Egyptology in this thread, what’s your explanation for the fact that the largest and most precisely built structures of ancient Egypt are the oldest?

I'm not being unkind, but the explanation is that you (and others here) don't follow archaeology and don't read many of the journals and papers on archaeology and you haven't read many high quality pages on Egypt.

Also, they're not precisely built. The pyramids are not equal-sided. And as for alignment, Ramesses had his temple aligned so that the sunrise of his birthday each year streamed through the many courtyards and lit the statue of himself in the very back of the temple.

Now that's precision!

(also, they had surveying methods and ... what you don't seem to realize... is it's VERY easy to align things. Want a temple that runs precisely east and west? Place a stick into the ground, wait for sunrise. The shadow of the stick will be a straight line to the west. Mark the shadow and you have a very straight line that's perfectly oriented.)

Egypt was a civilization that seemed to appear out of nowhere

It did not.

Evidence goes back to 30,000 BC (not a typo. Thirty thousand) and the Nile River saw the emergence of nearly twenty different cultures, some of which were original, some of which developed from older cultures. It's during these periods that the first protowriting and the art style develops.

The predynastic arose in several locations (many artifacts and remains as evidence) and merged with King Narmer

with a system of writing and building techniques that declined over the centuries, rather than being improved upon, which doesn’t really fit with the accepted version of history.

In fact, building got much better. From the relatively simplistic pyramid and temple designs come the monumental structures such as the Library of Alexandria and the great Temple at Karnak (I've put those in the wrong historical order and there's around 1500 years between Karnak and Alexandria, but still...) their ability to move and shape stone and other materials improved over time. One significant innovation was the change from stone tools at the time of the pyramids to bronze and iron by the time of Ramesses and Tutankamun.

Their writing did not decline. Instead, they developed alphabetic forms that continuously evolved and new symbols were added as new types of words and word sounds (from other languages) entered their language. They developed not one, but four alphabetic scripts... only one (formal hieroglyphs) was used for writing on buildings. Other types of scripts were used for papyrus. They have many forms of literature, including morality tales, moral instructions, biographies, poetry, songs, etc, etc.

How did we go from the great pyramid to the ‘bent’ pyramid?

It was the other way around. The Bent Pyramid was constructed under Sneferu, the father of Khufu. Sneferu also built three (and maybe four) pyramids and THIS is where the overall design of the Great Pyramid comes from. Khufu just built one large one.

Why are massive blocks like the ones forming the base of the great pyramid not used in later megaliths?

Because they're freakin' inefficient and the Egyptians aren't stupid.

No, really.

Better construction techniques meant that they didn't need to use large blocks of stone.

One of the bigger innovations came during the time of Akhenaten, when he insisted on a standard sized block ("talatat") for use in constructing buildings. Later pharaohs followed this system because the smaller blocks were easier to maneuver and transport and they didn't need to stack massive stones in order to get their buildings and towering temple pylons to stay upright.

Consequently they used stone more efficiently.

Oh...

The Sphinx was actually theorized to be a lion originally, which combined with its orientation suggests it was built during the age of Leo (the lion), which is one of many references to the 26,000 year cycle of the procession of the equinoxes built into the great pyramid and other structures on the Giza plateau.

It wasn't a lion, wasn't built "during the age of Leo" (which is a New Age designation and doesn't actually have any real meaning)... and if you think they recorded the precession of the equinoxes, then have a look at their maps of the sky (which are actually very poor) and ask yourself how any civilization that had such bad astronomy would have known about precession of the equinoxes.

The earliest known observatories in Egypt are at Napata Playa and they did indeed have many markers to determine equinoxes and so forth - which made their calendars very accurate. Although they produced one of the greatest ancient astronomers (during the time of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra), overall their astronomy was inferior to that of the Babylonians (who had very precise star tables and calculations.)

a reply to: Byrd

In what I call the Cheops pyramid they have yet to find any remains. It was not a tomb. Its a daft though process thinking it was. An empty kings chamber and an empty queens chamber. The kings chamber was built to resonate. Why do you think it has mulitple celling layers (each resonating at a higher octave to the next) and is free standing from the rest of the pryamid. (with a free standing floor two)

Funny little shafts two running up from the queens chambers. What do you think is at the end of them. What did the robot see. Electrodes thats what they are. Why do you think they found salt and gypsum in the period.

It would have acted like a capacitorl. Thats why is built above an aquifer and built from limestone and covered in marble.

Its a machine and i have not said what it does.

Lots of tomb prymaids in Egypt. But the big boys where not tombs.

Happy New Year!

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

In what I call the Cheops pyramid they have yet to find any remains. It was not a tomb. Its a daft though process thinking it was. An empty kings chamber and an empty queens chamber.

How do you explain, then, mummies and mummy parts found in pyramids (including the most recent one from the time of Khufu of a queen in her own pyramid)?

Given that they were looted long before 500 BC (and that the grave robbers' methods of getting gold was to set fire to the mummies (we know this from an ancient Egyptian trial manuscript), why would you think that robbers would leave anything inside?

The kings chamber was built to resonate. Why do you think it has mulitple celling layers (each resonating at a higher octave to the next) and is free standing from the rest of the pryamid. (with a free floor two)

First of all, it's not free standing. The blocks are surrounded by and touch limestone. If you're trying to say that the granite has a natural resonance (it doesn't - it's not a pure material but a mixture of many minerals), then it is right next to limestone which would dampen any vibrations.

Second, resonance chambers don't have vaulted ceilings. Look at opera houses and theaters. If vaulted ceilings helped resonance (we've done a lot of testing), we'd have them.

Third, sound doesn't resonate THAT well in there (I've been in there.) There is some resonance from the stone walls, but not a lot.

Funny little shafts two running up from the queens chambers. What do you think is at the end of them. What did the robot see. Electrodes thats what they are.

They'd be rather dreadful electrodes, since stones of the original construction block them. Yes, I know diagrams show them connecting to the outside...but they don't.

Why do you think they found salt and gypsum in the period.

Lack of ventilation and moisture from the visitors' breath. Yes, really. You can see this same process in caves.

It would have acted like a capacitorl. Thats why is built above an aquifer and built from limestone and covered in marble.

To make a capacitor, you need a power source (a huge one), you need a lot of heavy duty wire, you need insulation for the wire, you need large metal plates (which, by the way, wouldn't have been stolen because they would have been too large and too heavy to take), and the right kind of solution if you're using an electrolytic capacitor. Salt (sodium and chlorine) and limestone (calcium, carbon, oxygen) are not solutions that you can make capacitors with out of the metals available in the world at that time (copper, iron, silver, gold). A copper-silver capacitor would leave a green/black crust and stain all over the interior that would be impossible to mistake. Even after thousands of years, the stain would be there.

If you don't believe me, go look up the diagrams for how capacitors are made (including leyden jars) and make one for yourself to prove it can be done. You can get a small granite bowl (glass and granite aren't the same) and try it out for yourself. The only restriction is that you have to use materials we've found in ancient Egypt... no titanium, no aluminum, etc.

If you need help getting started, here is a page on making a homemade capacitor. The tabs at the top show you the steps and background, and it's easy enough to replicate. Then change the materials and attempt to store static electricity (easier than storing a charge from a battery)

If you make it work, post your instructions here and we'll attempt to replicate it.

(and yes, I know a bit about electronics. Not a lot but a bit.)

a reply to: Byrd

Thank you for your answer. Not time to answer in full will get back to you.

They'd be rather dreadful electrodes, since stones of the original construction block them. Yes, I know diagrams show them connecting to the outside...but they don't.

Yes but what kind of stone. Stone has electrical properties too you know..

The stone blocks used inside the pyramid were made of another form of limestone containing crystal which is an extremely high electrical conductor and a small amount of metal, which allow for maximum power transmission. The shafts inside the pyramid were lined with granite. Granite, as a conductor, is a slightly radioactive substance and permits the ionization of the air inside these shafts.

harunyahya.com...

These where machines. Do you know what they where used for. What does the word pryamid mean. Where is your pyramid? Why are they still to this day represented as an all seeing eye.

Happy days

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: ApisM

with a system of writing and building techniques that declined over the centuries, rather than being improved upon, which doesn’t really fit with the accepted version of history.

In fact, building got much better. From the relatively simplistic pyramid and temple designs come the monumental structures such as the Library of Alexandria and the great Temple at Karnak (I've put those in the wrong historical order and there's around 1500 years between Karnak and Alexandria, but still...) their ability to move and shape stone and other materials improved over time. One significant innovation was the change from stone tools at the time of the pyramids to bronze and iron by the time of Ramesses and Tutankamun.

Those are indeed marvels. But not in a way where anybody needs to ask how they did it.

The bigger the structure, the bigger the risk a nation is taking when they attempt it. So if they didn't know in advance that they had the engineering skill required to complete it, the structures wouldn't be started.

If the bent pyramid was indeed to failed attempt, then I can see the progression. Bent, then low sloped (red pyramid), then Great Pyramid.

But I'm not really buying the idea of the Bent Pyramid being a mishap. They could correct it by building out the sides on the lower part and simply ending up with a lower overall slope. Why leave the embarrassing change if it isn't there on purpose? It makes no sense.

Their writing did not decline. Instead, they developed alphabetic forms that continuously evolved and new symbols were added as new types of words and word sounds (from other languages) entered their language. They developed not one, but four alphabetic scripts... only one (formal hieroglyphs) was used for writing on buildings. Other types of scripts were used for papyrus. They have many forms of literature, including morality tales, moral instructions, biographies, poetry, songs, etc, etc.

Japanese has three writing forms. But the reason for this is because they got their basic system from the Chinese, but it wasn't compatible with their spoken language.

Chinese has no inflection. "I run" "I ran" "he/she runs" .... etc. Japanese does have it. So the two other writing forms came about as a way to correct this by telling the reader what sound the word they are looking at is supposed to end with, so they can know whether it's past/future tense.... etc.

The other two: Katakana, and Hirigana were developed independently but they are essentially identical. Which one you prefer to use is mostly just a matter of tradition.

My point being: having multiple writing systems may suggest a borrowed technology.

How did we go from the great pyramid to the ‘bent’ pyramid?

It was the other way around. The Bent Pyramid was constructed under Sneferu, the father of Khufu. Sneferu also built three (and maybe four) pyramids and THIS is where the overall design of the Great Pyramid comes from. Khufu just built one large one.

Do you really buy into the whole "changed plans on the fly" story of the bent pyramid?

They couldn't have corrected the whole slope just by adding building materials to the lower portion? From an engineering standpoint, there is no harm in adding un

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: purplemer

a reply to: Byrd



In what I call the Cheops pyramid they have yet to find any remains. It was not a tomb. Its a daft though process thinking it was. An empty kings chamber and an empty queens chamber.

How do you explain, then, mummies and mummy parts found in pyramids (including the most recent one from the time of Khufu of a queen in her own pyramid)?



Given that they were looted long before 500 BC (and that the grave robbers' methods of getting gold was to set fire to the mummies (we know this from an ancient Egyptian trial manuscript), why would you think that robbers would leave anything inside?

Are we talking about the big pyramids or the smaller mud brick pyramids?

Any pharaoh who came later on could reappropriate a big pyramid as a tomb. If they were able to find the entry points for some of the others, but couldn't find the Great Pyramid's entry way, then that would provide a good explanation for why there is no writing in the Great Pyramid.

Otherwise that remains quite a mystery.

The kings chamber was built to resonate. Why do you think it has mulitple celling layers (each resonating at a higher octave to the next) and is free standing from the rest of the pryamid. (with a free floor two)

First of all, it's not free standing. The blocks are surrounded by and touch limestone. If you're trying to say that the granite has a natural resonance (it doesn't - it's not a pure material but a mixture of many minerals), then it is right next to limestone which would dampen any vibrations.

Second, resonance chambers don't have vaulted ceilings. Look at opera houses and theaters. If vaulted ceilings helped resonance (we've done a lot of testing), we'd have them.

Third, sound doesn't resonate THAT well in there (I've been in there.) There is some resonance from the stone walls, but not a lot.

This person got a different result.

www.audioease.com...

However, they found that only a few, specific frequencies resonated well.

Broad spectrum resonance is great if you're trying to build a concert hall, but if you're trying to use the vibrations for an engineering related purpose, you're better off building to just one frequency.

Funny little shafts two running up from the queens chambers. What do you think is at the end of them. What did the robot see. Electrodes thats what they are.

They'd be rather dreadful electrodes, since stones of the original construction block them. Yes, I know diagrams show them connecting to the outside...but they don't.

Why do you think they found salt and gypsum in the period.

Lack of ventilation and moisture from the visitors' breath. Yes, really. You can see this same process in caves.

That is a really good explanation for the salt. Although not for the gypsum (unless some workers were trying to clog holes and cracks with it.)

It would have acted like a capacitorl. Thats why is built above an aquifer and built from limestone and covered in marble.

To make a capacitor, you need a power source (a huge one), you need a lot of heavy duty wire, you need insulation for the wire, you need large metal plates (which, by the way, wouldn't have been stolen because they would have been too large and too heavy to take), and the right kind of solution if you're using an electrolytic capacitor. Salt (sodium and chlorine) and limestone (calcium, carbon, oxygen) are not solutions that you can make capacitors with out of the metals available in the world at that time (copper, iron, silver, gold). A copper-silver capacitor would leave a green/black crust and stain all over the interior that would be impossible to mistake. Even after thousands of years, the stain would be there.

A chemical battery seems more likely here. Basically you just need two chemical compounds that can exchange a Hydrogen atom, and then an electrolyte between them.

Limestone is mostly made of CaCO^3, which reacts pretty well with acids. Antacid tablets are frequently made out of it, and farmers use lime on their fields to counteract acid rain.

So if there was say, a water reserve below the ground that typically ends up with a lot of acid in it, and then something between them that makes a decent electrolyte, then the two things together could work as a chemical battery.

If you read about lead-acid batteries (the kind your car uses), the principle is basically the same. That battery uses different chemicals, but they're being used in essentially the same way as limestone and some other acid would work.

en.wikipedia.org...

Granite, for its part has what is called a "piezo electric" property due to having quartz in it. It generates a charge when it is placed under stress. If it is made to vibrate, for example by exposing it to sound at a frequency that it is able to resonate with, it will alternate between positive and negative charge.

THis guy kind of explains it, although he does so in the context of debunking a myth about limestone causing ghost sightings.

iopscience.iop.org...

So you've got basically two things that could be part of something...... but all by themselves they don't quite do the job.

If they could invent a diode, then they could clip the positive or negative part out of the vibrating limestone, and gradually pump a positive or negative charge into the limestone.

... but the granite was in direct contact with the limestone,.... so I think we're still missing something.


All that aside, if the pyramid were being used as part of a battery, and sound was being used to charge it, then .... well,... we're not exactly talking about the kind of power plant that can power a city or anything like that here.

More likely perhaps a way to change the properties of the surrounding farm lands. Something useful in itself. Something that could be invented on a small scale, and then built on a large scale. Like if they saw a notable change in a garden that used a sonically charged battery to affect the alkali metals in the ground or something.

Maybe the land around the NIle wasn't always as fertile as we know it to be today?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

Thank you for your answer. Not time to answer in full will get back to you.

They'd be rather dreadful electrodes, since stones of the original construction block them. Yes, I know diagrams show them connecting to the outside...but they don't.

Yes but what kind of stone. Stone has electrical properties too you know..

It does indeed... however, these stones are not a consistent quality (which is what you need for electrical properties.) Things like ruby and sapphire and diamond (crystals) are a single composition throughout. Limestone varies with the fossils and other material in it, and granite... is all over the place.

The stone blocks used inside the pyramid were made of another form of limestone containing crystal which is an extremely high electrical conductor and a small amount of metal, which allow for maximum power transmission. The shafts inside the pyramid were lined with granite. Granite, as a conductor, is a slightly radioactive substance and permits the ionization of the air inside these shafts.

Limestone was mined from Giza itself, and it doesn't have crystals. Nor does it conduct electricity. The layers in the limestone mean that it's not a consistent material. There is nothing particularly unusual about this limestone- it's found all over that area of Egypt.

You can try it for yourself and see how poorly it conducts electricity... go get a block of limestone and try to measure a battery (or, heck, your house current) through it.

These where machines. Do you know what they where used for. What does the word pryamid mean. Where is your pyramid? Why are they still to this day represented as an all seeing eye.

Pyramid is just the name of the shape... and they weren't associated with the "all seeing eye." That symbol doesn't show up until after 300 AD, thousands of years after the pyramids were built

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Are we talking about the big pyramids or the smaller mud brick pyramids?

I was talking about the Giza pyramids. Arabic writers of the Islamic period report seeing mummies in there.

This person got a different result.

www.audioease.com...

However, they found that only a few, specific frequencies resonated well.

You can get sound to resonate off any hard surface. What they got is about the same as you'd get in a shower or any other hard stone area.

Broad spectrum resonance is great if you're trying to build a concert hall, but if you're trying to use the vibrations for an engineering related purpose, you're better off building to just one frequency.

And they found several, depending on where they set up their microphones. Again, you could do the same thing setting up in any room with hard surfaces... empty locker room, empty gym, empty garage.

Why do you think they found salt and gypsum in the period.

Lack of ventilation and moisture from the visitors' breath. Yes, really. You can see this same process in caves.

That is a really good explanation for the salt. Although not for the gypsum (unless some workers were trying to clog holes and cracks with it.)
Gypsum is a precipitate of limestone. You find gypsum in limestone caves.

A chemical battery seems more likely here. Basically you just need two chemical compounds that can exchange a Hydrogen atom, and then an electrolyte between them.

You run into the same problem.... you need a lot of insulated wiring to set one up. Miles of it. And it needs to be insulated. Then there's the problem of the solution itself, which will degrade over time and the metals (copper, I assume) which would also degrade.

Ever left a battery in something for a few years and come back to find it covered with green stuff and semi-exploded? That's what would happen.

So if there was say, a water reserve below the ground that typically ends up with a lot of acid in it, and then something between them that makes a decent electrolyte, then the two things together could work as a chemical battery.

If you read about lead-acid batteries (the kind your car uses), the principle is basically the same. That battery uses different chemicals, but they're being used in essentially the same way as limestone and some other acid would work.

I'm familiar with it. However, there's still the issues to overcome that the pyramids would be useless as batteries. You can't change the electrolyte easily or maintain the thing (replace the metals) easily, and anyway there's no insulated wiring in Egypt at that time (or indeed till modern times.)

Granite, for its part has what is called a "piezo electric" property due to having quartz in it. It generates a charge when it is placed under stress. If it is made to vibrate, for example by exposing it to sound at a frequency that it is able to resonate with, it will alternate between positive and negative charge.

True...however, the crystals aren't uniform in size or shape or material. That means you don't get much of a charge out of it at all (almost immeasureable.)

... but the granite was in direct contact with the limestone,.... so I think we're still missing something.

That it's completely unworkable?

All that aside, if the pyramid were being used as part of a battery, and sound was being used to charge it, then .... well,... we're not exactly talking about the kind of power plant that can power a city or anything like that here.

Exactly. Plus it was miles from anyplace that could have used electricity. You don't put electricity in a graveyard... you put it in the King's house and in the Nobles' houses.

More likely perhaps a way to change the properties of the surrounding farm lands. Something useful in itself. Something that could be invented on a small scale, and then built on a large scale. Like if they saw a notable change in a garden that used a sonically charged battery to affect the alkali metals in the ground or something.

Maybe the land around the NIle wasn't always as fertile as we know it to be today?

Giza's on a plateau. In the desert. In the middle of a huge cemetery. If they were doing things to improve the crops, wouldn't it make sense to place it near the crops and near the biggest farms (which would be in the swampy delta)?