Great pyramid of Giza -- Could we rebuild it?

[ponderingturtle]

First, it's not clear when the Great Pyramid was built. See http://www.cycle-of-time.net/Radiocarbon.htm. Second, the techniques used to build the Step Pyramid are not even within hailing distance of those used to build the Great Pyramid. So, sure, the Step Pyramid could have been built with primitive technology. However, simply asserting that there was a logical progression from there to the Great Pyramid doesn't provide any explanation of how the Great Pyramid was built. Third, I don't know how it was built, but I've thrown out the possibility of kites having been used to raise the largest blocks. See http://obelisk.caltech.edu/ Yes, that's just conjecture, but so is the ramp theory.

What is so hard about filling in the steps of a step pyramid to make a true pyramid?

ANd why are you ignoreing the two failed pyramids that where built in the transition from step pyramid to true pyramid?

 

[PixyMisa]

I think what Rodney is trying to say is that the Step Pyramid was build by micro-construction, which we know can be done, but the Great Pyramid was built by macro-construction, which is of course impossible.

It logically follows that the Great Pyramid does not exist.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Rodney--

Once again, you seem to suggest that the Great Pyramid could not have been built with primitive technology. What sort of technology do you think it was built with? Futuristic? Otherworldly?

 

[richardm]

I've thrown out the possibility of kites having been used to raise the largest blocks.

You discount the idea that a mob of able-bodied men could drag 80 tons of stone up a ramp in favour of the idea that they could fly it into position using a kite? Why is the extra complication needed? What would they have attached the pulleys to? How did they get the stones to the position where the kites could be used to help pull them up, given that steering on a kite that size must surely be a hit-and-miss affair?

Just Seven people moving a 13 ton block up a 1:4 ramp and then rotating it into position. Does it not make you think that it is a reasonable proposal?

 

[MRC_Hans]

IMHO, the kite idea is basically ridiculous. Not that I don't believe that blocks of several tons could be lifted by kites, but there is simply no advantage to be gained from using kites.

A kite derives its lift from being held stationary against the wind (as opposed to an aircraft, which derives its lift from being moved through in principle stationary air by an engine). Thus, kites are limited by available wind speeds. This sets severe limits to the efficiency you can obtain from a kite because normal wind speeds are quite low (lift is generated roughly as a square function of airspeed). With the low airspeed, kites must have low wing-loads (ratio between wing area and generated lift) and this means that load-carrying kites have a low lift to drag ratio. Much later military kites have a lift to drag ratio of approximately one, and while ancient Egyptians may well have been able to build large kites (it is, however, strange that we have not a single depiction or description of it if they did), there is no reason to assume they could have done better.

A kite having a lift to drag ratio of one means that to lift a ton (including its own weight), the kite will excert a horizontal downwind pull of one ton. Since this will ideally be transferred to a tether rising at a 45deg angle, the pull on the tether will be appr. 1.4 ton!

Even if this could be optimized, it is unralistic to think that a kite could be constructed that excerted a pull that was less than its payload. Add to this that the kite is an unstable situation; that is, if something breaks or you let it go, it will crash to the ground. In contrast, if you pull a block along the ground, even on a ramp, you can keep cocks in place that will ensure that if you let go, it just sits there.

Also, of course, maneuvering multiton kites in the unpredictable wind-systems around a large structure (such as an unfinished pyramid) is insanely risky, at best.

Forgive the pun, but the kite idea simply doesn't fly.

Hans

 

[Rodney]

You discount the idea that a mob of able-bodied men could drag 80 tons of stone up a ramp in favour of the idea that they could fly it into position using a kite? Why is the extra complication needed? What would they have attached the pulleys to? How did they get the stones to the position where the kites could be used to help pull them up, given that steering on a kite that size must surely be a hit-and-miss affair?

I'm not discounting any ideas, I just want to see a demonstration. That goes for the kite theory as well as the ramp theory.

Just Seven people moving a 13 ton block up a 1:4 ramp and then rotating it into position. Does it not make you think that it is a reasonable proposal?

It would have been nice to see a video, but levering is an interesting idea.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not discounting any ideas, I just want to see a demonstration. That goes for the kite theory as well as the ramp theory.


It would have been nice to see a video, but levering is an interesting idea.

You know, things don't work like this.

We have a number of possible modes of action, and we have a pyramid. We also have historical accounts aboutthe pyramid being built, at a certain time, by the Egyptians. Thus we may conclude that the Egyptians built the pyramid using one or several of the suggested methods.

If you want to present an alternative theory you must either:

1. Show that the suggested methods are not feasible (not just that you don't think so).

or

2. Suggest an alternative theory that is more probable.

This "I don't believe this is right so prove it to me" is called the "Argument from incredulty" fallacy.

Hans

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Rodney, twice I have asked. Here's a third.

Once again, you seem to suggest that the Great Pyramid could not have been built with primitive technology. What sort of technology do you think it was built with? Futuristic? Otherworldly?

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, twice I have asked. Here's a third.

The Great Pyramid may have been built at the end of a previous civilization, rather than at the beginning of our current civilization.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

The Great Pyramid may have been built at the end of a previous civilization, rather than at the beginning of our current civilization.

So are you suggesting that before the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, there was a civilization with modern technology and techniques? If that is the case, can you explain why there is absolutely no evidence in the entire history of archaeology to show that? If this ancient modern civilization existed, wouldn't there be ancient Big Mac wrappers and 3/4" wrenches lying about all over the place?

 

[PixyMisa]

The Great Pyramid may have been built at the end of a previous civilization, rather than at the beginning of our current civilization.

As Nobby points out, there is absolutely no evidence of such a civilisation ever existing. We know that the present era of civilisation dates back to around 8,000BC with towns such as Çatalhöyük and Jericho. We have evidence of modern humans dating back around 40,000 years, but no permanent settlements older than 10,000 years.

And, of course, the older settlements were much smaller and more primitive than the cities of dynastic Egypt.

There simply was no previous civilisation that could have built the Great Pyramid; nor is there any evidence to suggest that anyone but the Egyptians did so.

 

[Rodney]

As Nobby points out, there is absolutely no evidence of such a civilisation ever existing. We know that the present era of civilisation dates back to around 8,000BC with towns such as Çatalhöyük and Jericho. We have evidence of modern humans dating back around 40,000 years, but no permanent settlements older than 10,000 years.

And, of course, the older settlements were much smaller and more primitive than the cities of dynastic Egypt.

There simply was no previous civilisation that could have built the Great Pyramid; nor is there any evidence to suggest that anyone but the Egyptians did so.

Depends when you think the Great Pyramid was built. If it was built about 2600 BC, you're probably right; but if it was built much earlier, you may be wrong.

 

[hgc]

Depends when you think the Great Pyramid was built. If it was built about 2600 BC, you're probably right; but if it was built much earlier, you may be wrong.

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin. Out of what cloth do you cut the "much earlier" concept?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Depends when you think the Great Pyramid was built. If it was built about 2600 BC, you're probably right; but if it was built much earlier, you may be wrong.

I have two requests.

1) Define "much earlier". Ten years? A hundred? Ten thousand?

2) Please show one tiny little bit of evidence that suggests the Great Pyramid was built "much earlier".

Thanks.

 

[PixyMisa]

Depends when you think the Great Pyramid was built. If it was built about 2600 BC, you're probably right; but if it was built much earlier, you may be wrong.

No.

It doesn't depend on when I think the Great Pyramid was built.

Any civilization capable of building the Great Pyramid would leave evidence of its existence other than the Great Pyramid. As I said, we have evidence of civilization going back to around 8000BC, and evidence of modern humans going back to around 40,000BC, and evidence of earlier hominid species going back millions of years. But nothing suggesting the ability to build structures such as this until after 3000BC.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The Great Pyramid may have been built at the end of a previous civilization, rather than at the beginning of our current civilization.

Apart from the obvious problems of evidence, what makes you assume that an earlier civilization would have better methods at its disposal than ancient Egyptians?

Hans

 

[hgc]

Apart from the obvious problems of evidence, what makes you assume that an earlier civilization would have better methods at its disposal than ancient Egyptians?

Hans

Must've had one of these:

 

[supercorgi]

The Great Pyramid may have been built at the end of a previous civilization, rather than at the beginning of our current civilization.

And myths of Atlantis again rise from the deep.

 

[Rodney]

I have two requests.

1) Define "much earlier". Ten years? A hundred? Ten thousand?

2) Please show one tiny little bit of evidence that suggests the Great Pyramid was built "much earlier".

Thanks.

1) In their 1994 book, "The Orion Mystery," Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert contend that the three major Giza pyramids are positioned relative to the Nile the same way the Orion belt stars were positioned relative to the Milky Way in 10,500 B.C. and argue that, at a minimum, the ground plan for those pyramids was laid out in that era.

2) In their 2005 book, "Pyramid Quest," geologist Robert Schoch and Robert McNally contend that the Sphinx exhibits weathering from rain that makes it "impossible" for it to have been carved as late as 2600 BC and present other evidence that both it and the Great Pyramid were built thousands of years earlier than that.

 

[Grimoire]

1) In their 1994 book, "The Orion Mystery," Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert contend that the three major Giza pyramids are positioned relative to the Nile the same way the Orion belt stars were positioned relative to the Milky Way in 10,500 B.C. and argue that, at a minimum, the ground plan for those pyramids was laid out in that era.

While there is a correlation between the direction of the shafts and the precession of Orion, there is no evidence supporting the claim that it was designed that way.

2) In their 2005 book, "Pyramid Quest," geologist Robert Schoch and Robert McNally contend that the Sphinx exhibits weathering from rain that makes it "impossible" for it to have been carved as late as 2600 BC and present other evidence that both it and the Great Pyramid were built thousands of years earlier than that.

Schoch ignores the effect of sand and wind in his analysis, and has been rejected by mainstream Egyptologists.