Mystery's of Egypt

hence, they probably did.

but, at times it is more efficient to break a large block due to already cracks being there... and simply breaking it down later or to even smaller manageable pieces.

Originally posted by King Castle
hence, they probably did.

but, at times it is more efficient to break a large block due to already cracks being there... and simply breaking it down later or to even smaller manageable pieces.

Is there any evidence to support this idea?

yes, the quarry.

also common sense of construction workers/builders.

you know the cement concrete workers, brick layers and stone cutters.

Originally posted by King Castle
i really think that they made their own stone blocks via an ancient cement mixing.

it would answer a lot of questions.

On first blush I would say no. After all we know they had the means to move similarly sized granite blocks.

Looking again, the guy proposing it does seem legitimate and willing to admit he doesn't have everything he needs to prove the theory.

but we really dont know how they moved the stone blocks we have theories that dont make sense.

some say the used their ships to float them do the build site and then hauled it off by slaves..

others that they were rolled down to the site using logs but there were no forest to get them and it would be too much for a forest to support the required lvl of wood.

Originally posted by King Castle
but we really dont know how they moved the stone blocks we have theories that dont make sense.

some say the used their ships to float them do the build site and then hauled it off by slaves..

How does that not make sense?

Originally posted by King Castle
others that they were rolled down to the site using logs but there were no forest to get them and it would be too much for a forest to support the required lvl of wood.

The concrete theory requires tremendous amounts of wood in order to work. Rollers have the advantage of being reusable.

no, they would not be re usable and making carts would be more reusable then a log supporting tons of weight.

the rolling log theory is the most absurd theory ever proposed.

there was no near by forest or sufficient wood at the time. logs dont have the strength to continuously support the weight of stone blocks used by Egyptians at the time.

for the boat theory to work we need to factor in the time frame and how feasible it would be to transport stone blocks at one time per ship.

it would be a constant river traffic jam. by the way it takes a thousands slaves just to move one large stone.

if you want answers about building dont ask a scientist, anthropologist or archeologist ask construction workers and architect

the concrete theory is actually the most realistic one require the least amount of expended resources and that is adding the amount of ships required and wood logs to roll them.

If you're talking about the wooden-ramp idea, it really falls flat due to the size the ramp would have to be once they built about half-way up the pyramid due to the angle of slope they would have needed to achieve. It would have been a colossal project in of itself,, equaling the pyramid, a several mile long ramp.

Wooden scaffolding, plus rope, plus thousands and thousands of slaves seems more plausible in lifting and placing these hundred ton stone , then rolling.

Edit: Though I guess a combo of scaffolding and smaller ramp and rollers could have been it too, maybe swtiching mid-point in the constuction.

Weren't they free men who were paid?

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're talking about the wooden-ramp idea, it really falls flat due to the size the ramp would have to be once they built about half-way up the pyramid due to the angle of slope they would have needed to achieve. It would have been a colossal project in of itself,, equaling the pyramid, a several mile long ramp.

Wooden scaffolding, plus rope, plus thousands and thousands of slaves seems more plausible in lifting and placing these hundred ton stone , then rolling.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Weren't they free men who were paid?

I'm sure the artisans and engineers were free and being paid, but most think the main force of hard-labor was provided by slaves, namely the Jews.

There is a theory based on certain biblical translation that supports that the Jewish tribes weren't slaves, but hired as day laborers by the Pharaohs.

also if they were paid it was mostly done by food...

beer and dried fish.

Originally posted by King Castle
yes, to an extend minus a few irregularities and logic gaps.

They would also have had access to domesticated animals to supply pulling and lifting force. Horses, oxes/water-buffalo, elephants, to name some.

youtube video talking about the pyramids dispels some of the building theories just being absurd. regardless of the PHD a person is holding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCpNr5EMMJw&NR=1

just ignore the title of teh video and listen to the ppl talking about how it could be done or not be done.

Originally posted by King Castle
no, they would not be re usable and making carts would be more reusable then a log supporting tons of weight.

Not the carts, you need to burn coal to get the natron ingredient.

And why would logs suddenly cease to be logs once you roll them around?

Originally posted by King Castle
the rolling log theory is the most absurd theory ever proposed.

there was no near by forest or sufficient wood at the time. logs dont have the strength to continuously support the weight of stone blocks used by Egyptians at the time.

Techniques like it seem to have been used all over the world.

Originally posted by King Castle
for the boat theory to work we need to factor in the time frame and how feasible it would be to transport stone blocks at one time per ship.

it would be a constant river traffic jam.

Yeah, it's pretty amazing. Why is your solution to this problem to have the Egyptians gather and trasnport an even greater amount of materials?

Originally posted by King Castle
by the way it takes a thousands slaves just to move one large stone.

Not slaves, paid workers. And yes they had thousands of them. We even found the places where they lived.

Originally posted by King Castle
if you want answers about building dont ask a scientist, anthropologist or archeologist ask construction workers and architect

Josepgy Davidovits is a chemist . . .

Many of his critics are in fact engineers, but mostly they're petrologists (ie people who a train in the study of rocks and rock formation).

Originally posted by King Castle
the concrete theory is actually the most realistic one require the least amount of expended resources and that is adding the amount of ships required and wood logs to roll them.

Even though chemically the stones don't seem to be a form of concrete? Even though they were able to move even larger blocks of granite?

The simplest explanation is only the best one if the evidence doesn't contradict it.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're talking about the wooden-ramp idea, it really falls flat due to the size the ramp would have to be once they built about half-way up the pyramid due to the angle of slope they would have needed to achieve. It would have been a colossal project in of itself,, equaling the pyramid, a several mile long ramp.

Wooden scaffolding, plus rope, plus thousands and thousands of slaves seems more plausible in lifting and placing these hundred ton stone , then rolling.

Edit: Though I guess a combo of scaffolding and smaller ramp and rollers could have been it too, maybe swtiching mid-point in the constuction.

No scaffolding needed. The mainstream theory is that they piled up sand, mud and waste material from the construction project then laid wooden planks along the top. Not a major technological feat.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No scaffolding needed. The mainstream theory is that they piled up sand, mud and waste material from the construction project then laid wooden planks along the top. Not a major technological feat.

Would have been rather massive, no? Especially as they got closer and closer to the top, these piles of earth and such.

Seems scaffolding (logs, planks and rope) would require far less material, considering they could have broken down sections and moved it around as needed, but I'm a laymen.

Originally posted by Robtard
Would have been rather massive, no? Especially as they got closer and closer to the top, these piles of earth and such.

Seems scaffolding (logs, planks and rope) would require far less material, considering they could have broken down sections and moved it around as needed, but I'm a laymen.

This is Egypt. See the foreground there? Dirt. See the city of Cairo in the back? Before it was there that was all dirt.

Of course that's just for the "long ramp" version. If they decided to twist their way around the sides scaffolding would probably be easier to work with.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is Egypt. See the foreground there? Dirt. See the city of Cairo in the back? Before it was there that was all dirt.

Of course that's just for the "long ramp" version. If they decided to twist their way around the sides scaffolding would probably be easier to work with.

Not questioning the supply of dirt, but the scope of work required to build and then take down these massive dirt mounds/ramps.

Be like building another Pyramid or two in terms of labor.

here is another link about the pyramid building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDLjd2CZYt8