Updated ideas of how the great pyramids were built

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
No, the point is you mentioned the melting point of wet granite; why would you do that if you believe it wasn't relevant
It was one single sentence quoted "as is" which contained both pieces of info.. .You jumped on the second piece of info
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
Why not shoot the messenger? The idiom comes from the notion that you shouldn't blame the person carrying bad news for the bad news. This isn't the situation at all here. This is someone spreading disinformation and ridiculous BS which is the exact opposite of news.
Have you read the relevant post ? It was about the fact that the internal ramp theory is .... a theory... that is not yet accepted

Saying that the internal ramp theory is well, a theory is neither disinformation, nor BS....
 
Mar 2018
984
UK
You do understand the difference between the 2 sentences below

"It is easy to discover B once you have discovered A" (as per above)

and (your incorrect interpretation)

"you must discover B in order to discover A"

Do try not to jump to conclusions
Ok, fine, interpret it the way you state first. It is still wrong. It is no easier to discover pi with cm than with any other unit of measurement. The two are literally completely unrelated. You might as well say "It's easier to go to the moon once you have post modern art".
 
Mar 2018
984
UK
It was one single sentence quoted "as is" which contained both pieces of info.. .You jumped on the second piece of info
Yes, because you also presented it. Apologies for assuming that you intended for us to read the information you provided.


Have you read the relevant post ? It was about the fact that the internal ramp theory is .... a theory... that is not yet accepted

Saying that the internal ramp theory is well, a theory is neither disinformation, nor BS....
Seriously? Why be so deliberately disingenuous? This is conspiracy theory crap 101.

I'm out of this thread, I've lost all hope that @tomar might act rationally, but hopefully I've done enough to convince a few silent readers of this thread to not fall into this stupidity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,614
Italy, Lago Maggiore
As an aside note Ancient Egyptians had calculated in some way the relation between a cirlce and a square [we can say that doing this they tried and calculate what we call "PI"]. In the Rhind papyrus this equivalence [a circle with diameter 9 = a square with side 8] indicates a value of 3.16.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
As an aside note Ancient Egyptians had calculated in some way the relation between a cirlce and a square [we can say that doing this they tried and calculate what we call "PI"]. In the Rhind papyrus this equivalence [a circle with diameter 9 = a square with side 8] indicates a value of 3.16.
Do we know when approximately they might have figured out this value ? And how they applied this knowledge in their construction techniques ?
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,722
Netherlands
Wait ... I wouldn't suggest that. If you melt it before of transporting it you will have to face a problem: molten rock is as hot as lava [it's lava!]. How can you transport it? What I imagine is that they broke the stone in little pieces to transport it. Then they melted it in a furnace somewhere on the pyramid [in this hypothetical scenario they had to lift the furnace while they proceeded with the works].
You would need either a huge furnace or a lot of them.
In short I find the idea on a par with Guam capsizing.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,614
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Do we know when approximately they might have figured out this value ?
Technically [like the Babylonians] they used a fraction, not a number [I said the relation in the Rhind Papyrus indicates 3.16 because if you calculate the fraction on it you obtain it].
Anyway the Rhind Papyrus had written around 1650BCE, the content was from about 1900BCE.

So we cannot say that Ancient Egyptians had calculated the PI [or Babylonians before of them], we can say that they had determined [as a fraction] a relation between a circle and a square.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
See the following image:

View attachment 25388


I presume anyone looking at this image can clearly see the stones are not uniform in terms of height. I would suggest that anyone who claims otherwise has never actually taken a close look at the structure...or he is blind.
Yep

Which brings up a question.... Why were those blocks different ? One would perhaps expect that they had some sort of measurments for desired block size....

Some time back, I read something saying that having different size blocks in a structure may help it be more resistant to earthquakes... Not sure how much truth there is to that, and whether it was the (a) reason for those differences... Or it was simply down to luck and not so good organization ?

and then I found this site


The exact number of stones was orginally estimated at 2,300,000 stone blocks weighing from 2-30 tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons. Computer calculations indicate 590,712 stone blocks were used in its construction.

which would basically put the number of blocks at roughly only a quarter of previous estimates

There are supposedly 144,000 casing stones, all highly polished and flat to an accuracy of 1/100th of an inch, about 100 inches thick and weighing about 15 tons each with nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. Computer calculations indicated 40,745 casing stones were used averaging 40 tons each before the face angle was cut.

The average casing stone on the lowest level was 5 ft. long by 5 ft. high by 6 ft. deep and weighed 15 tons. The casing stones weighing as much as 20 tons were placed with an accuracy of 5/1000ths of an inch, and an intentional gap of about 2/100ths of an inch for mortar.

and then this ?

The mortar used is of an unknown origin. It has been analyzed and it's chemical composition is known but it can't be reproduced. It is stronger than the stone and still holding up today.