Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Great pyramid of Giza -- Could we rebuild it?
- Thread starter Nathyn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- egypt history pyramids
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
Until I see how that thing is aligned with Orion's belt, I'm not impressed.
By the way, can you move an 80 ton block with a Delta II rocket?
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
It'll orient itself wrt to Orion occasionally, depending on its orbit.
You've got me! I can't move an 80 ton block with a Delta II rocket... for a couple of reasons... not least of which is: I don't own a rocket!
Besides we don't have 80 ton lifters (which is an engineering challenge). On Earth, you may want to try the HLV Svaven, with a capacity to lift 8,200 tons!
A modern engineering marvel
Modern civil engineering works are only the latest chapter in a story spanning thousands of years. Why do people denigrate our own development by assuming prior super civilizations?
Ove
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,945
It'll orient itself wrt to Orion occasionally, depending on its orbit.
You've got me! I can't move an 80 ton block with a Delta II rocket... for a couple of reasons... not least of which is: I don't own a rocket!
On Earth, you may want to try the HLV Svaven, with a capacity to lift 8,200 tons!
A modern engineering marvel
Modern civil engineering works are only the latest chapter in a story spanning thousands of years. Why do people denigrate our own development by assuming prior super civilizations?
I think it is a defence mekanism. Many peolpe doesn't understand sience today and some think scientists are arrogant (and some are i assume). And then it is a nice defence mechanism to say :"Ohh year you people are SO clever but you couldn't build the pyramids now, could you"?
And the short answer is: yes off course, we could build the pyramids but why ohhh why????
Jorghnassen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,942
I thought this link might be appropriate. A new theory on how the Great Pyramid was built: from the inside out.
A BBC article about the new theory: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6514155.stm
The most revealing quote here is:
"This goes against both main existing theories," Egyptologist Bob Brier told Reuters news agency after Mr Houdin explained his hypothesis.
"I've been teaching them myself for 20 years but deep down I know they're wrong."
So, why, Dr. Brier, would you teach something for 20 years that you knew was wrong? Could it be that, if you admitted you did not know how the Great Pyramid was built, that would have encouraged the crazies of the world? Was it better to pretend that "This Old Pyramid" solved all the technical problems of building the Great Pyramid when it didn't solve any of them?
Now, regarding Mr Houdin's theory, he has a long way to go to prove it, but at least he seems to recognize that the greatest mystery about the Great Pyramid was how the 60-ton monoliths were raised 50 meters above ground and positioned into place above the King's Chamber. That's a far -- and encouraging -- cry from the intellectually dishonest approach of the Egyptological establishment.
I'm following the debate in this thread with interest. I don't have any expertise to add, but I have a couple questions for Rodney.
Rodney, you seem to think the "This Old Pyramid" techniques cannot scale up sufficiently to explain the Great Pyramid. You keep challenging [someone] to try it with heavier blocks. Can you explain in what specific aspect those NOVA techniques work on a small pyramid but fail at the scale of the Great Pyramid? Maybe I missed this.
Also you said...
Why are straight ramps satisfactory for heavy capstones, but not the blocks of the Great Pyramid?
***
Regarding the new Houdin hypothesis, I think one nearly fatal weakness is that spiral, internal tunnels are not found in the ruins of any other Egyptian pyramid. We can't confirm this theory on the GP with violating its structure (not an option). But there are pyramids that have so degraded that an internal tunnel system spiraling near the edges and corners would be exposed. There is no precedent for this technique in the Egyptian record.
Rodney, you seem to think the "This Old Pyramid" techniques cannot scale up sufficiently to explain the Great Pyramid. You keep challenging [someone] to try it with heavier blocks. Can you explain in what specific aspect those NOVA techniques work on a small pyramid but fail at the scale of the Great Pyramid? Maybe I missed this.
Also you said...
Why are straight ramps satisfactory for heavy capstones, but not the blocks of the Great Pyramid?
***
Regarding the new Houdin hypothesis, I think one nearly fatal weakness is that spiral, internal tunnels are not found in the ruins of any other Egyptian pyramid. We can't confirm this theory on the GP with violating its structure (not an option). But there are pyramids that have so degraded that an internal tunnel system spiraling near the edges and corners would be exposed. There is no precedent for this technique in the Egyptian record.
Were the same construction techniques used to build the Empire State Building as are used to build a one-story house? In building a pyramid, problems increase exponentially as the size of the blocks increases and the height of the pyramid increases. Building a small ramp and moving a 1-2 ton block up it and around a corner is child's play. Just building a strong enough ramp to support 60-ton blocks is difficult enough, but then, you have the problem of moving those blocks up that ramp to a height of 50 meters. With a straight ramp, the volume of the ramp would be too massive to be practical. With a spiral ramp or network of spiral ramps, the corners would be too sharp to move 60-ton blocks around them, and such ramps would also have likely been impossible to build with anything like the accuracy required.
Because only one ramp is necessary for a capstone. With a pyramid, construction has to be undertaken at varying heights. So let's say there was a massive ramp leading to the 50-meter level of the Great Pyramid, where the largest blocks are located. What about work at other levels of the Great Pyramid? (keeping in mind that it was originally about 146 meters high). The total volume of all of the ramps necessary would far exceed the volume of the Great Pyramid. And where are the remains of these many ramps?
You're probably right, but at least Houdin recognizes that he has to solve the problem of the 60-ton blocks at a height of about 50 meters for his theory to be taken seriously. The producers of "This Old Pyramid" didn't seem to think they had to do this.
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 5,617
I understand the need for accuracy in placing the blocks of the Pyramid itself. I do not understand why there is such a need for accuracy in the ramps, nor why such accuracy would be "impossible".
rodney said:
You don't need many ramps. You just keep adding on to the ramp you've got.
Only one ramp is necessary. It just keeps growing, both in height, length, and volume.
Rodney said:
The producers of "This Old Pyramid" didn't set out to rebuild the Great Pyramid. They set out to discover what types of techniques might have been employed at the time. I don't recall them making any kind of definitive statement about their conclusions.
ReligionStudent
Knitter
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- Messages
- 888
We could probably build it, this misidea comes from misqoting the fact that we are unsure how they were origionally created.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Rodney, you have yet to respond to my charges that modern engineers can produce structures beyond the wildest dreams of the 'ancients.' Why can't we just accept that the pyramids were a marvelous accomplishment... given the engineering skills at the time? Why go looking for extras (especially when the evidence is so tenuous)?
As Margaret Morris notes in her review of "This Old Pyramid":
"Critics of the spiral ramp point out that it would obscure the true reference points (the four corner stones at the pyramid's base, the angle of the pyramid's sides, and its baseline). Failure to make all measurements from these absolute reference points would introduce errors that would compound as the pyramid rose. Even the slightest error would have compounded as workers took successive measurements from inaccurate reference points. The result would be a structure with irregular sides that would not form a proper pyramid shape. NOVA offered no solution to this problem, making it impossible to take this design seriously."
What design to you have in mind? Can you illustrate?
Near the beginning of "This Old Pyramid, the narrator states:
"With an Egyptian crew and original methods, this odd couple will use mind and muscle to solve the mystery of This Old Pyramid." See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/1915mpyramid.html
That was accurate, except for the parts about using original methods and solving the mystery.
Because we still don't know how the major pyramids -- in particular, the Great Pyramid -- were built.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
We also don't know everything that was contained in the library at Alexandria...
I suppose if you're simply interested in an honest search for the true techniques used, I can understand that. However, I don't believe that an honest search involves invoking ancient supercivilizations. There are certain things (as people have pointed out) that we'd expect a civilization of even modest technical competence to be able to leave behind. A big pile of rocks is really not that impressive.
If, on the other hand, we accept the civilization at the time (and while always searching for more answers), we can see the pyramids as a great accomplishment. It belittles them to think that they couldn't have done it, and it belittles us to suggest that they somehow had greater engineering prowess than is found in the modern environment.
I think there's a good response to that concern to be found in this article.. http://www.catchpenny.org/control.html
In a nutshell: the casing blocks were cut to the desired, invariant angle on the ground, before placement. Then the casing blocks were put in place on a new course directly atop, and edged neatly to, the casing blocks on the below course, with the masonry blocks filled in behind. Course by course this continued without ever needing to check reference points with the ground. The pre-cut angle forced the outcome to be a straight incline.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
No. The work involved increases linearly with the size of the blocks (assuming you refer to mass) and geometrically with the height of the pyramid.
It's dead easy, actually. There are 60-ton masses whizzing around the world all the time, up and down ramps, over bridges.
Utterly specious. The pyramids themselves are of no practical use or purpose whatsoever; the Egyptians built them anyway.
Have you ever considered building bigger corners?
Accuracy? Accuracy? It's a bleedin' ramp, Rodney. They hauled rocks up it. "Accurate" here means "adjacent to pyramid".
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Given the typical sources of error in construction, it is just as likely that errors would average out rather than compounding. And the builders could indeed correct many errors, since they could measure the size and angle of the structure at any point and maintain straight and level layers of stone. All they need for that is string, a rock, and a bowl of water.
Building something like the Great Pyramid doesn't require much technology, but you have to substitute a huge amount of labour.