Ancient nuclear war and technology


#121

[QUOTE=thomas;49242]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.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be alluding to Davidovits theory. From the wikilink I cited above:

Limestone concrete hypothesis

Materials scientist Joseph Davidovits has claimed that the blocks of the pyramid are not carved stone, but mostly a form of limestone concrete and that they were “cast” as with modern concrete.[36] According to this hypothesis, soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza Plateau. The limestone was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of cooking fires) and natron (also used by the Egyptians in mummification) was mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet “concrete” would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden moulds and in a few days would undergo a chemical reaction similar to the “setting” of concrete. New blocks, he suggests, could be cast in place, on top of and pressed against the old blocks. Proof-of-concept tests using similar compounds were carried out at a geopolymer institute in northern France and it was found that a crew of five to ten, working with simple hand tools, could agglomerate a structure of five, 1.3- to 4.5-ton blocks in a couple of weeks.[37] He also claims that the Famine Stele, along with other hieroglyphic texts, describe the technology of stone agglomeration.

Davidovits’ method is not accepted by the academic mainstream. His method does not explain the granite stones, weighing well over 10 tons, above the “King’s Chamber”, which he agrees were carved. Geologists have carefully scrutinized Davidovits’ suggested technique and concluded his came from natural limestone quarried in the Mokattam Formation.[38] However, Davidovits alleges that the bulk of soft limestone came from the same natural Mokkatam Formation quarries found by geologists, and insists that ancient Egyptians used the soft marly layer instead of the hard one to re-agglomerate stones.

Davidovits’ hypothesis recently gained support from Michel Barsoum, a materials science researcher.[39] Michel Barsoum and his colleagues at Drexel University published their findings supporting Davidovits’ hypothesis in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society in 2006. Utilizing scanning electron microscopy, they discovered mineral compounds and air bubbles in samples of the limestone pyramid blocks that do not occur in natural limestone.[40]

Dipayan Jana, a petrographer, made a presentation to the ICMA (International Cement Microscopy Association) in 2007[41] and gave a paper[42] in which he discusses Davidovits’ and Barsoum’s work and concludes “we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility of a ?manmade? origin of pyramid stones.”

Again this theory too fails. There are obvious 10+ ton carved granite blocks in the pyramids several stories up that were obviously not “dirt” These 10+ ton blocks were transported over several miles and then lifted several stories in height. How is this possible without a crane?


#122

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49240]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.”[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should read Dr. Smith’s book [I][B]How the Great Pyramid Was Built, [/B][/I]instead of taking his quotes out of context.
I have it in PDF, it’s a great read.


#123

No, that’s not what I meant, and I don’t know whose theory this is.

But imagine you wanted to put three gigantic blocks on top of each other and had no way to lift them into place.

You slide the first block into place. Then you haul dirt in and fill the area all around it and make a ramp up one side to slide the next block up and then into postion, and then add more dirt and do the same thing, until the last block is in place. Now your monument is 2/3 covered by a mound of dirt, but you haul that away.


#124

[QUOTE=thomas;49246]No, that’s not what I meant, and I don’t know whose theory this is.

But imagine you wanted to put three gigantic blocks on top of each other and had no way to lift them into place.

You slide the first block into place. Then you haul dirt in and fill the area all around it and make a ramp up one side to slide the next block up and then into postion, and then add more dirt and do the same thing, until the last block is in place. Now your monument is 2/3 covered by a mound of dirt, but you haul that away.[/QUOTE]

Again, none of the ramp theories work. How do you suggest 70 ton blocks are moved up an inclined ramp that goes several stories in height? How wide would this ramp be and how many people would be pulling the 70 ton block?


#125

I don’t know. I’m going to see if I can find it on youtube.


#126

@Indra Deva

I took a look at the wikipedia article, but didn’t read the whole thing. One of the things I saw in the documentary was done inside one of the pyramids. They took a special kind of straightedge, one that is very accurate, and used it to check the flatness of the stone. It turned out to be just about perfectly flat, which is not easy to do. I did not see any mention of that in the wikipedia article.


#127

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49248]Again, none of the ramp theories work. How do you suggest 70 ton blocks are moved up an inclined ramp that goes several stories in height? How wide would this ramp be and how many people would be pulling the 70 ton block?[/QUOTE]

This EXACT same thing was done during Tirupati’s construction, Surya. The Indians created ramps and used elephants and man labor to push up the stones to great heights as material for building the temple.

By the way, you seem to think one has to push up all the weight up a ramp. This is not the case. In fact, one has to do work against a [B]component [/B] of the weight. This component is [B]mg*sin(theta)[/B] where mass is in kilograms. And since ramps don’t go beyond a 45 degrees (or else its purpose is defeated) and since the sin of an angle decreases with decreasing angle, this component is smaller and more manageable to work with.

Of course, one has to take into account the friction of the ramps they might have used. It is not an entirely hard thing to make the wooden ramps smoother through polishing. Hence, not that much more work would have been done in pushing the blocks up the ramps.

Besides, I DID mention that there was a LOT of man labor involved; in fact, it was almost the entire agrarian base of Egyptian society (which was a very high percentage and population).


#128

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49240]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?[/QUOTE]

No wheels? Are you kidding? Ok, they didn’t have chariots until the invasions of Egypt by Eastern Mediterranean groups in the Middle Period, but how hard is it to attach two round cylinders at opposite ends of a rod? How hard is it to make a cart to put the blocks on? Besides, evidence of these tools, if they existed, would barely have survived the 4+ millennia between the building of the pyramid and today. You can’t use the lack of evidence against something anthropological in nature. Besides, I thought we agreed that the development of civilizations is like a sin graph, or cyclic in nature…how could you Surya Deva…after all we have been through together…

Additionally, on the banks of the river Nile…a great power lurked…a power so terrifying that it conquered Greek markets and Roman society…this deadly power was called the Papyrus reed. With it, the Egyptians created paper and used similar methods to create ropes. Ropes that might have been used to tie the blocks, pull them up, and so forth.


#129

[QUOTE=thomas;49242]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.[/QUOTE]

Actually, there is one important factor I forgot to mention when I was talking about forces needed to push blocks that size. Static Friction.

You see you can just push along the block with ease since the force due to gravity is perpendicular to the displacement of the block. There is also resistance in the form of static friction. Static friction is the force that is keeping the block at rest. It is proportional to the Normal Force, which is the force at which the ground pushes back on the block.

F = mumg, where mu is the coefficient of friction.

The coefficient of friction is simply the a certain measure of the friction of the surface (basically how easily the object on the surface can acquire motion). Each type of surface has its own coefficient of friction, including sand.

Therefore, you do require a large force (which is a certain percentage of the weight of the block) to get the 70 ton block to overcome static friction and set it in motion. Once you overcome static friction however, not that much force is required to keep it in motion.


#130

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;49317]Actually, there is one important factor I forgot to mention when I was talking about forces needed to push blocks that size. Static Friction.

You see you can just push along the block with ease since the force due to gravity is perpendicular to the displacement of the block. There is also resistance in the form of static friction. Static friction is the force that is keeping the block at rest. It is proportional to the Normal Force, which is the force at which the ground pushes back on the block.

F = mumg, where mu is the coefficient of friction.

The coefficient of friction is simply the a certain measure of the friction of the surface (basically how easily the object on the surface can acquire motion). Each type of surface has its own coefficient of friction, including sand.

Therefore, you do require a large force (which is a certain percentage of the weight of the block) to get the 70 ton block to overcome static friction and set it in motion. Once you overcome static friction however, not that much force is required to keep it in motion.[/QUOTE]

Wait, hang on a second. It isn’t kinetic friction that is acting on the cart system after it is set into motion; it is still static friction. I forget that easily sometimes. So technically, you kind of still have to apply roughly the same force to keep it moving, or else the object stops.


#131

This EXACT same thing was done during Tirupati’s construction, Surya. The Indians created ramps and used elephants and man labor to push up the stones to great heights as material for building the temple.

In this case it is different. They are moving much more bigger and heavier blocks, some of which are 70 tons of hard granite stone. To move a 70 ton block horizontally is one thing, but to move a 70 ton block vertifically is another altogether. The incline increases the work done.

In the so-called kings chamber, 4 70 ton blocks are simply stacked one top of one another and serve no apparent function. Why? Why would you move such heavy blocks to a significant height for nothing?

If you look at the insides of the pyramid, you find must of the pyramid is just block, it contains only three chambers and two mysterious shafts the size of a shoebox which contain 70 ton blocks within the shaft with two metal fiits like electrodes paralled to one another and a hole wihin it (this has been confirmed by sending robots down the shafts with a video camera) Both shafts are identical, except in one of the shafts one of the electrodes is electroplated with a white substance.

Here is what the insides look like:

None of the pyramids except the great Giza pyramid has an interior like this. Look closely at the interior, it looks very much like a circuit. Notice the stack of 70 ton granite blocks in the kings chamber and how much it seems to resemble some kind of resonater. Grante blocks contain quartz, which is known for its electrical properties.

If one closely scrutanizes the the interior one finds that the traditional account by Egyptologists of this structure being a burial place for a the king makes no sense whatsoever. If that is true why do we not find any burials inside the pyramid? Why is there a circuit like design? Why are there other chambers and for what purpose? Why does the so-called kings chamber need 4 70 ton blocks stacked up on one another? Why does it need shafts? Why have blocks with electrode like fittings inside the shaft? Why is one electroplated with a white substance? Why build such a massive structure which is estimated to have taken 20 years and tens of thousands of skilled masons, and only use a percentage of it?

The more I analyse it the more I come to the conclusion this is no burial chamber or a residential structure, this seems to be some kind of industrial structure alluded by what looks like a resonator, a circuit like design, and shafts containing blocks with electrode like fittings with evidence of electroplating - and holes within them suggesting these are ducts which contained some kind of chemical solution which filtered in through the plugs at a constant and fixed rate.

I recently read the Giza power plant theory put forward by an engineer and scientist who has reverse engineered the Giza structure and examined it very closely stating there is clear evidence of machining involved in crafting the structure and clear evidence of its serving an industrial purpose(he believes it generated power). His evidence can be found here:

http://www.gizapower.com/Articles.htm

The reivews of his main book are very interesting to read:


#132

Imagine in the future after a massive cataclysm that wipes out our modern civilisation the next generation of humans now back to premodern civilisation stumble upon a power plant. Will they recognise it as a power plant or something else? Perhaps a religious structure we used to bury our kings in. The turbine with its giant magnet and coils could be seen as a supernatural device to aid the spirit of the king. Similarly, I think the pyramids could be a device which uses a science so advanced we cannot recognise it, so instead we see it as a religious structure.

However, we might be coming very close to the kind of science that previous advanced civilisations may have had. I call them pranic sciences, but which modern scientists call quantum science. It is now known for a fact that there exists a quantum field in free space which is known as the zero point energy field or quantum vacuum. This field is an infinite reservoir of energy. At each point in space this energy can be tapped. It is now also known that whatever we call matter is just a vibration of energy. Everything has its own vibrational resonance(Including the Earth) The future of physics is going to be vibrational physics or harmonics.

The more we look at ancient advanced sources we find that they have one thing in common: they all have expertise in sound and geometry. The Egyptians and the Peruvians and the Indians all have one thing in common: they are experts in the use of sound(acoustics) and geometry. The Peruvians in particular are master acoustic engineers. If one looks at contemporary physics, contemporary physics too is starting to shift towards a sound paradigm - everything is vibrations of different frequency ranges and is starting to realise the importance of harmonics in tapping energies.

If we could tap the zero point energy field(Sanskrit: Akasha) we can extract a massive amount of energy which can then be converted into all kinds of energy to power our devices and transmitted across space(like wireless electricity) Such energy could also be used to create wormholes to travel to very distant regions of space. I think the Giza Pyramid might have served either of these functions, but we are still too much in our infancy of the pranic sciences to appreciate them.


#133

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49326]In this case it is different. They are moving much more bigger and heavier blocks, some of which are 70 tons of hard granite stone. To move a 70 ton block horizontally is one thing, but to move a 70 ton block vertifically is another altogether. The incline increases the work done.

In the so-called kings chamber, 4 70 ton blocks are simply stacked one top of one another and serve no apparent function. Why? Why would you move such heavy blocks to a significant height for nothing?

If you look at the insides of the pyramid, you find must of the pyramid is just block, it contains only three chambers and two mysterious shafts the size of a shoebox which contain 70 ton blocks within the shaft with two metal fiits like electrodes paralled to one another and a hole wihin it (this has been confirmed by sending robots down the shafts with a video camera) Both shafts are identical, except in one of the shafts one of the electrodes is electroplated with a white substance.

Here is what the insides look like:

None of the pyramids except the great Giza pyramid has an interior like this. Look closely at the interior, it looks very much like a circuit. Notice the stack of 70 ton granite blocks in the kings chamber and how much it seems to resemble some kind of resonater. Grante blocks contain quartz, which is known for its electrical properties.

If one closely scrutanizes the the interior one finds that the traditional account by Egyptologists of this structure being a burial place for a the king makes no sense whatsoever. If that is true why do we not find any burials inside the pyramid? Why is there a circuit like design? Why are there other chambers and for what purpose? Why does the so-called kings chamber need 4 70 ton blocks stacked up on one another? Why does it need shafts? Why have blocks with electrode like fittings inside the shaft? Why is one electroplated with a white substance? Why build such a massive structure which is estimated to have taken 20 years and tens of thousands of skilled masons, and only use a percentage of it?

The more I analyse it the more I come to the conclusion this is no burial chamber or a residential structure, this seems to be some kind of industrial structure alluded by what looks like a resonator, a circuit like design, and shafts containing blocks with electrode like fittings with evidence of electroplating - and holes within them suggesting these are ducts which contained some kind of chemical solution which filtered in through the plugs at a constant and fixed rate.

I recently read the Giza power plant theory put forward by an engineer and scientist who has reverse engineered the Giza structure and examined it very closely stating there is clear evidence of machining involved in crafting the structure and clear evidence of its serving an industrial purpose(he believes it generated power). His evidence can be found here:

http://www.gizapower.com/Articles.htm

The reivews of his main book are very interesting to read:

First, let me point out an error in your post. An incline does not increase the work done. It decreases the force required to do the task. The work done in the end is the same, since a lesser force exerted over a greater distance has the same effect as lifting something the thing the same height. For example,

See the diagram above? The force required to move the block is simply the component of weight in the direction of motion.

F = mgsin(a) = mg(h/I).

The work is equal to the force times the displacement = Fd. So:

W = Mg(h/I) * I = mgh. And guess what the work is when you just lift the block? It is simply the work done to give the block the gravitational potential energy at a height H. That is simply

W = U = Mgh.

Hey, whaddaya know? The [B]work[/B] is equal. The [B]force[/B] needed is less in an incline, though the total work is the same. That is mechanical advantage for you.

Second, I know of something similar to this theory. In fact, I remember watching a documentary where an engineer examined a pyramid and came to the conclusion that the whole circuit/electrode thing led to the emission of a particle (I think it was an alpha particle or something) out of an opening in the pyramid. Could it have a device to communicate with aliens? I don’t know and neither did they for sure. But I do accept these findings (not their overall purpose) and find them extremely intriguing.

In any case, this should be more evidence towards the supposition that Egyptians had a civilization far more advanced than we have previously thought. I am in favor of such findings.

Why am I going through all this talk of physics? To show that the civilizations could have possibly done these things without “alien help.” Bringing in aliens simply demeans the civilization’s accomplishments and, as you stated, adds unnecessary factors and complications. Simple mechanics like inclined planes and etc is only a small step towards showing that those civilizations may have had more efficient and advanced techniques.


#134

I don’t think we need to factor in aliens at all.

You don’t need to use equations, I won’t be able to follow them anyway :smiley: I did pure mechanics in A level maths and studied A level physics, but that is a distant memory.
I am more of a language scientist than a mathematical scientist. I look at the descriptions without mathematical formalism(which is considered a fallacy in philosophy of science)

Common sense shows me that if you move an object up an incline you are working against gravity as well. It is easy to see when walking up a steep hill, that it requires more energy to walk up a steep hill than it does on a flat plane. The steeper the incline the more work you have to do against gravity. I certainly feel like I am burning more calories when I am walking up a steep hill.

Why is this wrong? Please explain without the equations :smiley:


#135

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49331]I don’t think we need to factor in aliens at all.

You don’t need to use equations, I won’t be able to follow them anyway :smiley: I did pure mechanics in A level maths and studied A level physics, but that is a distant memory.
I am more of a language scientist than a mathematical scientist. I look at the descriptions without mathematical formalism(which is considered a fallacy in philosophy of science)

Common sense shows me that if you move a object up a incline you are working against gravity as well. It is easy to see when walking up a steep hill, that it requires more energy to walk up a steep hill than it does on a flat plane. The steeper the incline the more work you have to do against gravity. I certainly feel like I am burning more calories when I am walking up a steep hill.

Why is this wrong? Please explain without the equations :D[/QUOTE]

It is wrong because you are doing work against a [B]vector component [/B] of gravity; that is, the component of gravity in the direction of your displacement. Gravity points downward (or towards the center of the Earth but it doesn’t matter since the ground is in line with the force of gravity). When you are walking on an incline, the force of gravity is weaker by a certain factor; that factor is the trigonometric value at the sin of the angle.

You are misunderstanding the concept of work and the context of my statements. Remember, work is defined as the component of the force [B]in the direction of your displacement [/B] times the displacement itself. So why do you feel less tired when you walk on a flat surface? Because you are doing no work against gravity. Gravity is exactly perpendicular to your displacement (remember, since it points downwards) and so, no work is done against it. The only work you do is the force [B]you [/B]exert times your displacement.

The purpose of an incline is to diminish the force that you would normally use to [B]lift[/B] an object. The end work is the same but the force is less. We use it because we are humans and enjoy delayed gratification. :smiley: (Get it? We would rather enjoy pleasure at instant moments even though the same energy is used in the end…No? cricket chirp).

By the way, there are other factors involved with using an incline and the work you do; the factors are the friction of the surface, your health condition (:smiley: but its factored in the work you do anyway), and etc. In the equations above, I assumed that you are barely overcoming the force due to static friction; The difference is so small that it can be ignored. In real life, this is hardly the case.


#136

So why do you feel less tired when you walk on a flat surface? Because you are doing no work against gravity. Gravity is exactly perpendicular to your displacement (remember, since it points downwards) and so, no work is done against it. The only work you do is the force you exert times your displacement.

That is what I just said, no? That when I am walking on a flat plane I am doing no work against gravity. When I walking on an incline I am doing work against gravity. If we imagine pushing a car along a flat plane as opposed to opposed to pushing it up a steep hill, it becomes apparent that we need to work harder when moving it uphill than when moving it across a flat plane. This seems logical to me and fits my experience. In the gym on the tradmill if I run when there is no incline at the same speed I burn lower amount of calories than when I run at the same speed on an incline. I can feel the muscles in my legs actually work harder.

Anyway coming back to the pyramid question. It has been recognised by actual engineers that how the Egyptians moved those 70 ton blocks several storeys high is problematic. We require cranes to do this kind of work. I would like to see an actual demonstration of moving 70 ton blocks by just human effort.

The others facts are of course that the way these blocks have been cut and fitted together with such precision and acccuracy is another fact that engineers have noted is problematic without more modern and sophisticated tools. The pyramids were originally covered with a layer of limestone polished to the polish of a contact lens, it was so precise that the pyramid shined. This covering was also several tons in weight.

The confidence with which the Egyptians engineers are using such heavy blocks(even modern engineers do not do this) and transporting and lifting them and cutting them precisely suggests highly advanced engineering technology.


#137

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49336]That is what I just said, no? That when I am walking on a flat plane I am doing no work against gravity. When I walking on an incline I am doing work against gravity. If we imagine pushing a car along a flat plane as opposed to opposed to pushing it up a steep hill, it becomes apparent that we need to work harder when moving it uphill than when moving it across a flat plane. This seems logical to me and fits my experience. In the gym on the tradmill if I run when there is no incline at the same speed I burn lower amount of calories than when I run at the same speed on an incline. I can feel the muscles in my legs actually work harder.

Anyway coming back to the pyramid question. It has been recognised by actual engineers that how the Egyptians moved those 70 ton blocks several storeys high is problematic. We require cranes to do this kind of work. I would like to see an actual demonstration of moving 70 ton blocks by just human effort.

The others facts are of course that the way these blocks have been cut and fitted together with such precision and acccuracy is another fact that engineers have noted is problematic without more modern and sophisticated tools. The pyramids were originally covered with a layer of limestone polished to the polish of a contact lens, it was so precise that the pyramid shined. This covering was also several tons in weight.

The confidence with which the Egyptians engineers are using such heavy blocks(even modern engineers do not do this) and transporting and lifting them and cutting them precisely suggests highly advanced engineering technology.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is what you are saying. Sorry, I forgot to include the confirmation. But my point was that you do the same work on an incline plane as when you lift the object. I thought we were talking about lifting stuff by the way (and I did misread your post). You [I]would [/I]do more work on an incline plane compared to a flat surface. But if you want to get something to a higher elevation, you would use an inclined plane. Pushing things on flat surfaces doesn’t accomplish much in the lifting department. :smiley:

Which brings us back to the point of explaining the block lifting stuff. Now, we aren’t exactly sure what neat tricks the Egyptians could have discovered to make dragging/lifting blocks easier. But there is always the man labor portion of the problem. If we know rough estimates of the demography of Egypt at the time, we can estimate the population assigned to build the pyramid and consequently, the numbers that would have could have been assigned drag each 70 tonn stone. We can make a leap of faith and assume that each person exerts some average force (of course, the men were probably not as healthy and well fed as today) and from that, we can see how many people would be needed to do work with that block on average. Then we can decide if its realistic or not (while accounting possible technologies or factors or techniques that could have facilitated the process). I find this method more scientifically satisfying than falling unconscious over seeing a giant slab of stone.


#138

You would do more work on an incline plane compared to a flat surface. But if you want to get something to a higher elevation, you would use an inclined plane. Pushing things on flat surfaces doesn’t accomplish much in the lifting department.

Ah, thank you. It made complete logical sense that you would do more work on an inclined plane than a flat plane, so I was thrown off a bit when you said you wouldn’t :smiley:

So factoring in this extra effort against gravity even if we could conceive of an army of men dragging the rocks along with ropes to the site on a sledge with wooden rollers, how they would then drag the rock several storeys up on ramps seems inconceivable. How wide would these ramps be and how many people would fit on the ramp to drag the rocks? Again I cannot conceive of this being done without a crane.


#139

I don’t see why dirt ramps are being dismissed. If the ramp is long enough, the incline is not prohibitive. The blocks could be put on logs as rollers. They probably knew about using pulleys. Why try to come up with a complicated answer, when a simple one works?


#140

Ramps are generally considered to have been the main lifting devices for heavy material. While lifting devices such as pseudo pulleys and wooden levers were likely known in ancient Egypt, it has not been demonstrated that these tools could lift the massive stones of the great pyramids, which sometimes weighed as much as fifty or more tons. Yet there are many different theories regarding what shape ramps may have taken, and there sometimes appears to be flaws in most any such design. However, today we know that ramps were definitely used at least in some pyramids, because we have discovered a number of ramps at various pyramid sites, along with some documentation that would suggest the use of ramps.

Remains of ramps have been discovered at Meidum, Dahshur, Abu Ghurab and Abusir, thus supporting the claims of Siculus. Notable also are the Sinki pyramid at South Abydos and the Sekhemkhet pyramid where ramp remains, and even complete ramps have been discovered. Other ramp remains may have also been discovered at Giza, where excavators from the Cairo University excavated two parallel walls that may have formed the retaining framework of a ramp.

The ramp theory is further supported, at least circumstantially, by documents featuring mathematical problems connected with construction projects, and ramps in particular. In general, it is assumed that ramps used to lift the giant blocks had an outside wall and framework made of mudbricks, with an interior filled with sand and other rubble, and perhaps covered with clay. However, beyond these basic specifications, Egyptologists differ considerably on their views of what such a ramp might have looked like. Complicating this matter further, it also seems that at different pyramid locations, different types of ramps might have been used. For example, in some places more room was available to construct such ramps than at other locations, so it is likely that the general design of these ramp systems may have varied simply due to necessity.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlifts.htm