Ancient nuclear war and technology


#101

[QUOTE=Asuri;49030]You think not? Maybe in your inexperienced mind, but in the real world, it takes power. And technique. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, it also takes tools, really good powerful tools. You can’t run those kinds of tools from a teeter totter.[/QUOTE]

Show me your degrees in anthropology and history. Maybe even Physics. If not, then show me proof that you have taken at least a college level World History course or a college level Physics course. No? Then watch who you call “inexperienced” imbecile. You underestimate other civilizations like chauvinistic Westerns and the powers of simple machines like levers, fulcrums, and so forth.


#102

[QUOTE=thomas;49040]So do you think what you believe based on your facts and observations is superior to what Christians believe?[/QUOTE]

Essentially yes. Did any scientific advancement take place when the Church endorsed and enforced its flat-earth and geocentric models? Did modern science confirm such fables?


#103

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49036]It is true that the mainstream archeaological and scientific evidence is not in support of it, but if you watched the documentary I linked it shows very clearly archeaological findas have indeed been found which supports extreme antiquity of human beings and these findings have simply been ignored by the archeaological community on purpose or even suppressed, with some archeaologists losing their jobs over the matter. If humans have indeed been around for 2 billion years which the oldest archeaological find seems to suggest, it is certain that that we have techological civilisations in the past which are lost.

Neitzsche, this is not a Western vs others issue. In fact the mainstream Western archeaological community agree with you that the ancients built them using primitive methods(they also agree that Aryans invaded India) and do not at all claim they were incapable of bulding them. If you keep accusing everything of being Western chauvanism your valid criticisms of the West will be eclipsed by your invalid criticisms. Please be more discriminate in your accusations against the West, in order to maintain your credibility with objective readers.

In this case it is not a Western chanvainsitic view, but a view held by a minority of scientists and engineers which have examined the pyramids, and the South American cities and have found that given the primitive methods that are thought to be available to the ancients, it would have been impossible to build these structures. Some of those blocks weigh 450 tons in weight and they come from a source that is several miles away. In the case of the South American ones they come up from several miles high up in the mountain. We cannot move and transport blocks such heavy blocks with even the biggest and heaviest cranes in the world, then how could it be conceivable the ancients could do it with primitive means?
The engineers have also found evidence of very precise cutting and machining used in the stones on the Pyramid

These questions need to be answered on how it could be possible at all. If there is an explanation for it then we can settle this matter right now. But first I need proof that that such a feat can be done using primitive methods.[/QUOTE]

It is possible and not to be ruled out. I am well aware that our current history is highly dependent on the random skeleton archeologists dig up in Africa. And although it is possible that the human species may have devolved and evolved multiple times, much more evidence needs to be found. And last time I checked, human bodies don’t survive that long, except under [B]very[/B] special conditions. But I admit, your links have intrigued me. I will watch the videos when I have time.

“Given the primitive methods [B]thought[/B]…” This is precisely my point. They don’t know for SURE what methods they MIGHT have used. Many are unwilling to accept that the Incans MIGHT have had more advanced methods to build such monuments. And as you said, this all comes from those who are at the limits of their knowledge and comprehension. Add in a little bit of Eurocentrism and Western scientific dogma…

Fine, I will watch the videos and cross examine them with outside research. But I won’t be surprised if I see the same “Egyptians couldn’t have built the pyramids without alien help” garbage.

Indeed, I would love for someone to find out whether similar things can be done with “primitive” tools.

By the way, there was a documentary floating around on how the Tirupati temple was built. In the end of the documentary, they found out that the Indians built MILE LONG RAMPS and used elephants to roll slabs of heavy blocks of granite (several tons in weight) to the top of the complex, and used advanced carving/shaping techniques, far more advanced than previously thought, to shape one of the toughest rocks in the world as material for building the temple. Unbelievable isn’t it? But it happened.


#104

The evidence for technological devolution than evolution is found if we look at the evidence of dark ages that seem to appear and reappear all the time in history. If we look at the accepted date of the Giza Pyramids in 3000BCE, we find that the pyramids built later are less sophisticated and advanced. Similarly, we find in the Harappa sites in the Indus valley that the lower strata(the sites underneath the recent sites) were more sophisticated and advanced. Then in later sites in India we find a progressive reduction in urban complexity.

What this suggests to me is is very clearly the rise and fall of science and technology throughout human history. It has not just been a simplistic straight line development as we currently accept stone age, then bronze age, then iron age, then industrial age, then computer age. It seems to be more like a line going up and down constantly throughout human history. We suddenly reach very high levels of science and technology, and then all of a sudden there is a loss and we fall into dark age, and then rise again.

It should be noted that our current modern civilisation is the result of recycled old knowledge. We learned how to produce steel in modern times by reverse engineering old steel production methods. We developed formal logic by looking at ancient logic. And what is ironic our reproductions do not measure up to our ancient sources. Just like the later pyramids do not measure up to the Giza pyramids.

If tommorrow there was a series of massive cataclysmic events in the world, it would be expected that the generations that follow would be playing catch up again to get to our present modern levels.


#105

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49044]You are assuming a standard jet propulsion or rocket system. Rather, this is a different propulsion system. In fact Nietzsche, we are already building engines uncanningly similar to the one described in the Sansrit text - and one of the fuels we have used is indeed mercury(as well xenon and ceasium):

A form of electric space propulsion in which ions are accelerated by an electrostatic field to produce a high-speed (typically about 30 km/s) exhaust. An ion engine has a high specific impulse (making it very fuel-efficient) but a very low thrust. Therefore, it is useless in the atmosphere or as a launch vehicle, but extremely useful in space where a small amount of thrust over a long period can result in a big difference in velocity. This makes an ion engine particularly useful for two applications: (1) as a final thruster to nudge a satellite into a higher orbit and or for orbital maneuvering or station-keeping, and (2) as a means of propelling deep-space probes by thrusting over a period of months to provide a high final velocity. The source of electrical energy for an ion engine can be either solar (see solar-electric propulsion) or nuclear (see nuclear-electric propulsion).

On Aug. 1, 1961, NASA awarded a contract to the Astro-Electronics Division of RCA to design and build a payload capsule for flight-testing electric propulsion engines. The program called for seven capsules, three for ground tests and four for actual flight tests. Each capsule was expected to carry two electric engines. The first was expected to carry one cesium-fueled ion-engine representing Stuhlinger’s design with the Hughes engine. The second was expected to carry one mercury-fueled ion engine representing Kaufman’s design with the Lewis engine. Plans called for the engines to operate from 1 to 2 kW of power. Hughes demonstrated an ion engine on Sep. 27, 1961, at its research laboratories in Malibu. Stuhlinger was among those on hand to greet the scientific and technical writers who attended the event.

Ion propulsion - also known as solar-electric propulsion because of its dependence on electricity from solar panels - has been under development since the 1950s. Dr. Harold Kaufman, a NASA engineer, built the first ion engine in 1959. In the 1960s, NASA Glenn undertook a spaceflight test program called Space Electric Rocket Test (SERT).

In 1964, a pair of NASA Glenn ion engines were launched on a Scout rocket under the name SERT 1; one of the two thrusters onboard did not work, but the other operated for 31 minutes. NASA Glenn also lead the way for a follow-up mission, SERT 2, which carried two ion thrusters, one operating for more than five months and the other for nearly three months.

Many early ion engines used mercury or caesium instead of xenon. SERT 1 carried one mercury and one caesium engine, while SERT 2 had two mercury engines. Apart from the fuel, these ion drives were similar to Deep Space 1’s; the mercury or caesium would be turned into a gas, bombarded with electrons to ionise it, then electrostatically accelerated out the rear of the engine.

But mercury and caesium proved to be difficult to work with. At room temperature, mercury is a liquid and caesium is a solid; both must be heated to turn them into gases. After exiting the ion engine, many mercury or caesium atoms would cool and condense on the exterior of the spacecraft. Eventually researchers turned to xenon as a cleaner and simpler fuel for ion engines.

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Science-Fact-Ion-Propulsion/A_1403/article.html

Now if we compare the description given of the mercury-engine in the Sanskrit text we will find they are uncanninly similar:

The ion engine using the mercuy source first heats up the mercury source contained in the craft either using solar-electric means or nuclear means, which then become ionized and the high speed ions are then through a controlled manner(in this case using electric fields) is used to provide thrust.
The Sanskrit text says that the mercuy engine is the interior of the aircraft, containing 4 metal containers containing mercury, it is then headed in a controller manner through a special iron apparatus, which causes the latent power within mercury to be released providing a thrust causing an instant velocity. (Note, although such an engine would not work in the atmosphere, it would work in space and literally then it would become like a pearl in the sky. )

I think what is clear that this is a secondary description. This sanskrit text is suppose to be a redaction by a 10th century Indian king Bhoja of a much older literature on engineering. It is more a compilation than an actual how-to-build guide of ancient knowledge on engineering. The fact that it is describing in such clear detail a mercury engine for an aircraft cannot be ignored. The fact of the matter is this text is also describing machines that we know for a fact exist(such as mechnical computers to calculate astronomical positions)

You are talking of the Viamanika shastra here and the pictures the designs were drawn up by an illustrater. This text has dubious origins because it has been channeled and there is no evidence that this text existed. The Sanskrit text I mentioned though is authentic.[/QUOTE]

As a student taking college level physics, there was not one statement I could find that wasn’t scientifically or factually dubious in nature. Your descriptions of thrust, specific impulse, and citations of ion engines and descriptions on how they worked, were correct in their content. You have managed to convince me a little. I just need to see the text myself.

Yes, you are correct about the Vimanika shastra.


#106

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49161]The evidence for technological devolution than evolution is found if we look at the evidence of dark ages that seem to appear and reappear all the time in history. If we look at the accepted date of the Giza Pyramids in 3000BCE, we find that the pyramids built later are less sophisticated and advanced. Similarly, we find in the Harappa sites in the Indus valley that the lower strata(the sites underneath the recent sites) were more sophisticated and advanced. Then in later sites in India we find a progressive reduction in urban complexity.

What this suggests to me is is very clearly the rise and fall of science and technology throughout human history. It has not just been a simplistic straight line development as we currently accept stone age, then bronze age, then iron age, then industrial age, then computer age. It seems to be more like a line going up and down constantly throughout human history. We suddenly reach very high levels of science and technology, and then all of a sudden there is a loss and we fall into dark age, and then rise again.

It should be noted that our current modern civilisation is the result of recycled old knowledge. We learned how to produce steel in modern times by reverse engineering old steel production methods. We developed formal logic by looking at ancient logic. And what is ironic our reproductions do not measure up to our ancient sources. Just like the later pyramids do not measure up to the Giza pyramids.

If tomorrow there was a series of massive cataclysmic events in the world, it would be expected that the generations that follow would be playing catch up again to get to our present modern levels.[/QUOTE]

This is too true. When I look at history on a holistic scale, I too feel that the human species has undergone periods devolution and evolution, each time losing the inherent capability and brilliance that comes with empirical observation and connection with nature.


#107

[QUOTE=thomas;49054]So if I believe, based on what I know, that my religious beliefs are superior to other religious beliefs, based on what I know and undertand about them, what is wrong with that?

And I have not denied any possibility of evolution. What makes you think a Christian cannot believe in evolution?

I don’t believe the Bible is a science book. It most certainly is not, and is not intended to be.

Science and religion are two different things. I believe what science reveals and believe what my religion teaches, which does not contradict science. The God of my religion is the same God of nature and science, so the two are in harmony.[/QUOTE]

What is wrong with it? Its just wrong perhaps? How are you sure you have received an unbiased education of other religions in the world? Have you ever taken the time to critically question any of the li - cough* - beliefs you have been taught? If so, then it is your fault for being willfully ignorant than anyone else’s, perhaps even more so considering the fact that you’re 55 and a late convert to Catholicism.


#108

Some remarks on the evolution discussion. I think the truth might be more complex than the standard evolution theory for humans. We find evidence of fossils of homonids throughout human history and we infer from that one evolved into the other, but then again we find amongst earlier homonid fossils, fossils of modern humans as well. Is it possible just like modern humans and chimps and apes exist today, that in prehistoric times modern humans existed alongside other homonid species. The Ramayana certainly suggests this alongside modern humans existed a homonid species too.

How do we explain then how modern humans came on this planet in the first place, especially if we are finding evidence of modern humans 2 billion years ago? Did modern humans evolve like everything else? In that case evolution is much faster than is currently believed, but if that were true then other species would be evolving fast as well and there is no evidence for that. The other explanation is modern humans arrived from other planets in the universe when this planet became habitable. The third explanation is that the natural evolution of homonids has been tampered with by ET(explaining the so-called missing link)

Whichever we look at it the origins of humans on this planet is extremely mysterious. Therefore we must consider every possible explanation - even the ancient astronaut theories.


#109

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49172]Some remarks on the evolution discussion. I think the truth might be more complex than the standard evolution theory for humans. We find evidence of fossils of homonids throughout human history and we infer from that one evolved into the other, but then again we find amongst earlier homonid fossils, fossils of modern humans as well. Is it possible just like modern humans and chimps and apes exist today, that in prehistoric times modern humans existed alongside other homonid species. The Ramayana certainly suggests this alongside modern humans existed a homonid species too.

How do we explain then how modern humans came on this planet in the first place, especially if we are finding evidence of modern humans 2 billion years ago? Did modern humans evolve like everything else? In that case evolution is much faster than is currently believed, but if that were true then other species would be evolving fast as well and there is no evidence for that. The other explanation is modern humans arrived from other planets in the universe when this planet became habitable. The third explanation is that the natural evolution of homonids has been tampered with by ET(explaining the so-called missing link)

Whichever we look at it the origins of humans on this planet is extremely mysterious. Therefore we must consider every possible explanation - even the ancient astronaut theories.[/QUOTE]

Hey don’t get me wrong, I find the ancient astronaut theories extremely interesting. It is just the kind of thing that appeals to my sense of profound mysteries and unearthly answers. However, no “expert” out there, and I literally mean NO “expert,” has ever managed to talk about ancient astronaut theories with a straight face. You know what I mean.


#110

It is silly denying the existence of ET given the fact that the size of this universe is staggering, contains hundreds of billions of earth like planets based on estimations. The ancient astronaut theory should be taken more seriously. We must also consider the evidence for UFO’s which if investigated objectively will prove to be immense.

I never overlook any evidence. The so-called experts however filter out evidence they do not like and keep evidence they like.

Can you consider the implications of what exactly modern civilisation might be missing out on because of these “experts” suppressing the truth? We are missing out knowing a vast multidimensional universe filled with a community of intelligent beings and a universe that is a vast field of conscousness and life - a divinity - that everybody else in the universes knows to be a fact. We are missing out on knowing the full extent of our human history on this planet and the full extent of knowledge we had and full extent of our human potentials.

If these “experts” would just step away and stop filtering the evidence staring us in the face we could probably make several scientific and technological leaps in a single generation.


#111

[QUOTE=kareng;49111]What are those odds?..

There is one account in the bible that is rather interesting I think…The one at the beginning of Ezekiel, the man that saw God…
What is interesting is the description given…[/QUOTE]

I’m familiar with that.

I have seen the same programmes here in England…I just don’t believe this is evidence to support advanced technologies…it was blood sweat and tears that built the pyramids and the tools used were probably used with much more patience and numbers of people.

The most compelling evidence is the accuracy of the cuts in the stone, both in Egypt and especially in Peru. It’s just not possible to achieve that kind of accuracy with hand tools. I believe there was probably also a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, but there was more than that.


#112

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49176]It is silly denying the existence of ET given the fact that the size of this universe is staggering, contains hundreds of billions of earth like planets based on estimations. The ancient astronaut theory should be taken more seriously. We must also consider the evidence for UFO’s which if investigated objectively will prove to be immense.

I never overlook any evidence. The so-called experts however filter out evidence they do not like and keep evidence they like.

Can you consider the implications of what exactly modern civilisation might be missing out on because of these “experts” suppressing the truth? We are missing out knowing a vast multidimensional universe filled with a community of intelligent beings and a universe that is a vast field of conscousness and life - a divinity - that everybody else in the universes knows to be a fact. We are missing out on knowing the full extent of our human history on this planet and the full extent of knowledge we had and full extent of our human potentials.

If these “experts” would just step away and stop filtering the evidence staring us in the face we could probably make several scientific and technological leaps in a single generation.[/QUOTE]

I never denied ET’s existed. I am very familiar with Drake’s Equation and the probabilities. All I was attempting to convey was that it is highly unlikely, given the evidence we have [B]presently[/B], aliens gave mankind a helping hand hear and there throughout our history. This doesn’t rule out the [B]possibility [/B] however and I am more than interested enough to examine any contrary evidence.


#113

I don’t think it is unlikely that ET’s have intervened through different periods in human history. If we accept the most likely fact that ET’s exist and they monitor us with their UFO’s, then it is clear ET’s can interfere in our affairs. It would have been easier for ET’s to interact with us in two circumstances:

  1. In stoneage times when the human is not scientifically and technologically developed enough for its development to be interfered with by ET. In these times ET can freely travel around earth and even co-habit.

  2. In space age times when the human is scientifically and technologically developed enough to travel in deep space and find ET’s.

The current modern civilisation is pretty much in the infancy of space age. Incidentally, this is the period when UFO activity has become more intense. A good reason why ET does not interfere in our human affairs is because it would cause a shock to our civilisation that would affect us very adversely and affect our natural development. Most probably, they are waiting for us to become more advanced, before they reveal themselves to us.

However, I don’t think we need the ancient astronaut theory to explain how the pyramids etc were built and ancients got advanced knowledge. This would be multiplying quantities unnecessarily. It can easily be explained by the theory of lost and advanced ancient civilisations.

In the documentary I linked it shows clear evidence that the ancient city of Peru is built as such to correspond to astronomical positions such as predicting eclipses, tracking the movement of the sun in the sky. Given how precisely that Peruvian city has been built, they could not have made an error so simple to get the positions of the sun’s movements wrong. In fact there would be no error and the city would accurately track the sun’s movement if it was built 17,000 years ago.

Why do we automatically assume human civilisation began 10,000 years ago and before that everybody was just a hunting and gathering neanderthal? We have clear evidence of advanced cities prior to 10,000 years.


#114

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49184]I don’t think it is unlikely that ET’s have intervened through different periods in human history. If we accept the most likely fact that ET’s exist and they monitor us with their UFO’s, then it is clear ET’s can interfere in our affairs. It would have been easier for ET’s to interact with us in two circumstances:

  1. In stoneage times when the human is not scientifically and technologically developed enough for its development to be interfered with by ET. In these times ET can freely travel around earth and even co-habit.

  2. In space age times when the human is scientifically and technologically developed enough to travel in deep space and find ET’s.

The current modern civilisation is pretty much in the infancy of space age. Incidentally, this is the period when UFO activity has become more intense. A good reason why ET does not interfere in our human affairs is because it would cause a shock to our civilisation that would affect us very adversely and affect our natural development. Most probably, they are waiting for us to become more advanced, before they reveal themselves to us.

However, I don’t think we need the ancient astronaut theory to explain how the pyramids etc were built and ancients got advanced knowledge. This would be multiplying quantities unnecessarily. It can easily be explained by the theory of lost and advanced ancient civilisations.

In the documentary I linked it shows clear evidence that the ancient city of Peru is built as such to correspond to astronomical positions such as predicting eclipses, tracking the movement of the sun in the sky. Given how precisely that Peruvian city has been built, they could not have made an error so simple to get the positions of the sun’s movements wrong. In fact there would be no error and the city would accurately track the sun’s movement if it was built 17,000 years ago.

Why do we automatically assume human civilisation began 10,000 years ago and before that everybody was just a hunting and gathering neanderthal? We have clear evidence of advanced cities prior to 10,000 years.[/QUOTE]

As for the Peruvian city, it indeed would have been impossible for the Incan’s ancestors to have messed something as simple as that up. Even a Neanderthal with a lot of patience and time on his hands could have stuck a stick in the mud and made just as accurate predictions of the solstices and equinoxes. The explanation given in the documentary is the only viable one; in fact, as soon as I saw 23.5 degrees, I knew that they were going to talk about changes in the axial tilt. Such phenomenon is not uncommon and happens due to precession, gravitational influences, and etc.


#115

Yes absolutely, although the more correct date mentioned by the geologist using more accurate measurements suggests 12,000 years ago. In any case, this still suggests that advanced human civilisation was on this planet long before 10,000 years ago. Again, I think the reason the 10,000 date is given, is simply because it tallies well with Christian dogma of creation happening in 6000BCE with the foundations of their Judo-Christian history being laid. This is why they ignore all evidence which points to the contrary(Indian civilisation and its records going back million and billions of years, Egyptian and Incans civilisation and their records going back tens of thousands of years)

The Christian domihated West has portrayed itself as the chosen ones. As the original Isrealites that were god’s most favoured people. This is why they place themselves at the centre of the world. It is their history we are taught. It is their ideology that is installed in us. Hence why they went around the world destroying all other cultures, forcing them to accept their way. The original pagan cultures of this planet were all pretty much wiped out. History is treated as a uniquely Western affair and development of science and technology as a linear story that began in Sumeria, then was continued by the Greeks and the Romans and completed by the Europeans. Who then went about “civilizing” the savages of the world(white mans burden)


#116

The following documentary, “Technology of the gods” looks at the evidence for advanced technology in ancient times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVW-GWOmBWg&feature=channel

At 31 min it looks at the evidence for the advanced machining displayed by the Giza pyramids and the views of an expert engineer who is asked to examine the pyramids for his expert opinion on how they could have been built. His expert opinion is that it is impossible that they were built using any kind of primitive means(wooden rollers, planks, human labour pulling on ropes, pulleys)


#117

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49207]The following documentary, “Technology of the gods” looks at the evidence for advanced technology in ancient times.

At 31 min it looks at the evidence for the advanced machining displayed by the Giza pyramids and the views of an expert engineer who is asked to examine the pyramids for his expert opinion on how they could have been built. His expert opinion is that it is impossible that they were built using any kind of primitive means(wooden rollers, planks, human labour pulling on ropes, pulleys)[/QUOTE]

From an engineering standpoint, I can see why he would say that. But you have to take into account that almost the entire population of Egypt’s agrarian base (which was indeed a very high percentage), worked on the pyramid for most of the year (due to the regular flooding cycle of the Nile, which freed up their time in most occasions; besides, it has been proven through anthropology that this was the case, as it was considered an honor to serve the Pharaoh). That is a LOT of man labor involved.

Besides, you forget one important factor. The Nile River. Excavations of sites down the river revealed huge quarry places where the Egyptians would cut the rock and transport it up the the Nile River into the upper Nile Valley. There, the stones would be floated up with ease and taken to the site of the pyramid. Besides a civilization as advanced as that of the Egyptians would surely have come up with a wheeled cart of some sort to better transport the blocks. Since the weight of the object is perpendicular to the displacement, the only work you do is through pushing on the cart with a force applied in the direction of the displacement, times the displacement itself. See how physics can help in anthropology? :smiley:


#118

I heard a theory that makes a lot of sense that the pyramids were simply backfilled with dirt as they were being built, so the earth was always at the level of the current course of blocks, and that when completed, they removed the dirt.


#119

The following wikilink describes some of the conventional theories on how the pyramids were built.

It appears none of the scholars can agree on how they were built and every method they have suggested fails. It is also to be noted that all scholars agree that the pyramid is an incredibly precise and accurate structure:

As Dr. Craig Smith of the team points out:

“The logistics of construction at the Giza site are staggering when you think that the ancient Egyptians had no pulleys, no wheels, and no iron tools. Yet, the dimensions of the pyramid are extremely accurate and the site was leveled within a fraction of an inch over the entire 13.1-acre base. This is comparable to the accuracy possible with modern construction methods and laser leveling. That’s astounding. With their `rudimentary tools,’ the pyramid builders of ancient Egypt were about as accurate as we are today with 20th century technology.”

Why is there such a staggering level of accuracy comparable to that of lasers in the pyramids? Only an advanced scientific civilisation would care to have accuracy measurable within a fraction of an inch:

The pyramid remained the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years,[9] unsurpassed until the 160-metre-tall spire of Lincoln Cathedral was completed c. 1300. The accuracy of the pyramid’s workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length.[10] The base is horizontal and flat to within 21 mm.[11] The sides of the square base are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 4 minutes of arc)[12] based on true north, not magnetic north,[13] and the finished base was squared to a mean corner error of only 12 seconds of arc.[14] The completed design dimensions, as suggested by Petrie’s survey and subsequent studies, are estimated to have originally been 280 cubits high by 440 cubits long at each of the four sides of its base. The ratio of the perimeter to height of 1760/280 cubits equates to 2π to an accuracy of better than 0.05% (corresponding to the well-known approximation of π as 22/7). Some Egyptologists consider this to have been the result of deliberate design proportion.

At completion, the Great Pyramid was surfaced by white “casing stones” – slant-faced, but flat-topped, blocks of highly polished white limestone. These were carefully cut to what is approximately a face slope with a seked of 5? palms to give the required dimensions…Petrie related the precision of the casing stones as to being “equal to opticians’ work of the present day, but on a scale of acres” and “to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost impossible”.

I am not an engineer but from all the evidence I have seen so far from engineers the Giza pyramids are exhibiting an obvious understanding of advanced engineering. It is crying out to me an advanced scientific civilisation from the high level of accuracy and confidence in transporting and lifting 80 ton blocks from 500 miles away to several stories height.

How on earth do you lift a 80 ton block to several stories in height without a crane?


#120

How on earth do you lift a 80 ton block to several stories in height without a crane?

You don’t have to if you are pushing it along the ground. If dirt was piled around the pyramid as it was being built, then the blocks were always pushed up an incline and pushed into place and not lifted by a crane-like device.