Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > megalithic construction      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 101
megalithic constructionPage 5 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

That is the exact point trying to be made. It can not be done with the pyramids and it can not be done with mythology even. You can not apply the scientific principles on subject matter that does not have a chance of ever being scientific and call it science just because you used similar methods.


And the point that I am trying to make is that one does not accept the fantastical at face value OR accept any proposed theory without researching to see what the other options are AND if the information is accurate. I am a layperson when it comes to many issues, but even I have seen enough in accuracies in the "documentaries" given as support to know that the theories are ignoring or overlooking many aspects.

Mythology is not "science" and can be interpreted in more than one way. However, when pyramids contain the rituals and spells that will allow the pharaoh to enter Tuat, it is obvious that they pyramids are tombs.


What that says to me is you do not allow free thinkers in your classroom. Not allowed to speak their minds but instead are limited to regurgitating someone else's words just to be granted a grade in your class.

That is higher education learning to you? To put limits and restrictions on your students?


When you have a teaching credential, spent three years getting a dual MA, and have taught college classes for 11 eleven years, you will be qualified to criticize my pedagogy.

Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.


Hey it is up to you but i would not be so harsh if you ever had a student come through your classes that were capable of original thoughts. Those are the ones we hear about down the road. NOT the ones that did nothing but regurgitate the words of others.

Just my thoughts and opinions


Ad hominem. Not only are you lacking in the understanding of research, but you attack me instead of merely disputing what I say.

You are not a college instructor, eh? So what you would "do" is a moot point.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 102
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:14:09 AM

When you have a teaching credential, spent three years getting a dual MA, and have taught college classes for 11 eleven years, you will be qualified to criticize my pedagogy.

Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.


I think thats kind of the point really

Even nowadays many things are taught that are scientifically known to be innacurate, but theyre just easier to teach and for students to understand and 99% of them wont ever be adversely affected in their working life by never knowing the updated version


Also, education tends to run behind cutting edge by various timeframes in different fields. In order for structured courses and texts to be used across an entire education sysrtem it just CANT use "new" ideas or discoveries. Its only option is to teach, and then test on what was thought to be true, 1, 10 or even 100 years ago

Despite it actually being by any real definition "unscientific" most science relies on resisting change even in many cases after it is known to be necessary and even once what is being taught is known to be outdated or lacking in validity

Because often new knowledge and technologies come along that punch holes in orthodox beliefs, but might still require decades or even centuries to at first figure out why initial assumptions were wrong, and then to try and formulate new explainations and a new flavour of orthodoxy

That isnt by any means a critique of education, because for some very obvious reasons it CANT work any differently otherwise there would be no collective basis for structure, testing and comparing somebodie knowledge

But by the same token, just because it HAS to work that way doesnt make it either right not factual. Especially in areas where the entire base of knowledge is only formed on a mountain of assumptions, theories and incomplete information to begin with

Because as with some of the things you class as psuedoscience, theyre things that we didnt have knowledge of when the orthodox versions of egyptology was started, or where we didnt have the technology to verify or negate assumptions or theories

One example there being that it has been assumed the tunnels and rooms were carved into the pyramids using candles, lanterns and flame torches as thats the only forms of artificial light we think they had back then

But modern testing as shown theres no trace elements of any residue from any forms of burnt material in the stone and in the sarcophagus (sp?) base in the great pyramid theres no ornamental markings normally found on one used for burial, nor is there any forensic evidence of embalming chemicals or dead matter which would be easily identifiable with todays test equipment and would have been present if it had ever been used as a tomb even if robbed later on

Orthodox egyptology couldnt have tested for any of that, and now cant explain why none of those things can be found, and cant even come up with a theory that fits the accepted time line and technology to explain how the tunnels and chambers could have been masoned without light

So it seems to just ignore them and dismiss any other theories as "psuedoscience" whilst not being able to offer its own explainations
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 103
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:25:11 AM

Neanderthals are a name given to humans, as far as I can make out.


More of a separate species of the genus "homo." As in homo neanderthalensis.

We're homo sapiens.

So no help for your creationism here. Sorry.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 104
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:33:36 AM
As near as I can tell, there are people on these threads whose approach to these subjects is to look at the science and go, "I don't understand that stuff so I want to think it's really X. You can't prove it isn't and it's a cool idea so it is now true! My ignorance is the deserving of the same regard as your knowledge! So there!"

Critical thinking, folks. Try it.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 105
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:47:17 AM
Its all so fascinating. Thanks for your steady voice of reason star , I love you
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 106
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:08:42 AM
But by the same token Star, you also have people who take something based in a theory that they read in a 10 year old book when they did their degree 15 years ago as being fact and treat scrutiny of it as thought its blasphemy even when other theories are already in the public domain from people in the same field and with equally valid credentials that just arent part of the orthodox mountain of theories

Science is hardly vacant of the orthodoxy defending their existing stance long after it should have been shelved and even trying to block or hamper new research that would be likely to discredit accepted doctrines to protect and maintain their own specialisations and income

As varied as scientists are theyre also still just people, and suffer from the exact same weaknesses, traits and flaws as everyone else including greed, arrogance and a fascination with leaving a legacy or maintaining their status
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 107
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:55:03 AM

As near as I can tell, there are people on these threads whose approach to these subjects is to look at the science and go, "I don't understand that stuff so I want to think it's really X. You can't prove it isn't and it's a cool idea so it is now true! My ignorance is the deserving of the same regard as your knowledge! So there!"

Critical thinking, folks. Try it.


YES!!!!


Sorry Gwen ... but the great pyramid of Cheops is 'NOT" obviously a tomb. Honest researchers have left it open as to what is obvious about it. It obviously has a better finish on the outside but the inside is far from obvious.


Then give a better reason for its construction than "harmonic convergence." How do you define an "honest" researcher? I don't know what you mean by "have left it open as to what it is obvious about it." How does the "better finish" on the outside qualify it as something other than a tomb? This is drawing a faulty conclusion or you are not explaining your stance very well.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 108
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 7:15:35 AM
Isnt a better question why it WOULD be assumed to be a tomb when it lacks things commonly seen in tombs like glyphs, genetic material and a corpse?

Thats like saying four people can sit comfortably in a house so it MUST be an SUV because four people can also sit in one of those

There shouldnt be anything wrong with people just admitting when they dont know the purpose of something when it clearly lacks indicators to its actual purpose.

Far better than just making up a purpose that isnt bourne out even by existing doctrines then climging to that assumption as though it had been proven

Its really a faulty conclusion from the outset, but one that is just accepted rather than "proven" in any way

As for the harmonic convergence theory, thats based on the fact its been observed doing exactly that.

Where its never been "observed" being a tomb of any description ever, just assumed to be one which isnt quite the same thing really

Harmonic convergence or more acurately, harmonic diagnosis and treatment is what the local tribes have been told generation after generation what their purpose and some of the surrounding buildings purposes were

They have also been correcting bad translation of many sets of glyphs too as they still use them as a form of writing today and the structure of them isnt the "orthodox" assumption as that treats them as having a similar construct to modern languages
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 109
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 12:20:17 PM

Students are required to evaluate their sources and analyze the information. Merely regurgitating the information that they research is a book report. To merely express opinions, as people are doing on this thread, is untenable in a RESEARCH paper.


Actually Gwen, this is the key to learning. A most value lesson for me was learning what to keep what to trash.

----------------------------------------

With regards to the pyramids in Egypt, they are impressive considering the time of construction. But the Nile delta provided the fertile ground to afford a civilization idle time to build these structures. Next someone had to sell the idea, and provide the method of construction. There had to be models built, an most likely a small scale construction. The pyramids project would require a great deal of human and agricultural resources. Now these are my thoughts, and I have no proof other than comparing to today's methods and common sense.
-------------------------------------------
The internet link below provides a great deal of information regarding the possible methods of construction. It also provides a wealth of info regarding existing physical structure.

http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/pyramid-building.html

-----------------------------

National geographic does a good job of laying out facts regards the pyramids. They give very plausible explanations of why and when for all eight pyramids, including a timeline. Place your mouse over the pyramids on this main page 1st, then click on them.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html#who

-------------------------

Here is a Google aerial map location of the first pyramid at Saqqara (Djoser). If you look to right of marker (between 2 and 3 o'clock). It appears to be a square hole until you zoom in.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.8665,31.2063&spn=0.01,0.01&t=k&q=29.8665,31.2063

---------------------

And last the location of the famous three at Giza including the largest (Khufu)

http://maps.google.com/maps?num=50&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=g2T&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=29.979323,31.133752

---------------------------------

For those who want to follow harmonic convergence theory and Egyptology then do so. In fact the footnotes at the bottom of a good research paper would include the sources of disregarded information.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 110
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 1:03:23 PM

But by the same token Star, you also have people who take something based in a theory that they read in a 10 year old book when they did their degree 15 years ago as being fact and treat scrutiny of it as thought its blasphemy even when other theories are already in the public domain from people in the same field and with equally valid credentials that just arent part of the orthodox mountain of theories


Actually, the two aren't really synonymous at all.

In my example, the people I refer to seem to think that opinion and conjecture is somehow equal to or greater than observation and evidence.

In science, it's about evidence. Yes, the endeavour of science can get quite contentious and even acrimonious. But the bottom line to anything is, either you have the evidence or you don't. And it is the evidence - whether it can be examined and confirmed by independent sources - that usually is the final deciding factor.


Science is hardly vacant of the orthodoxy defending their existing stance long after it should have been shelved and even trying to block or hamper new research that would be likely to discredit accepted doctrines to protect and maintain their own specialisations and income


When you use the tems like "orthodoxy" and "doctrine," you are equating science with religion. But science isn't religion. Religion relies on belief in the ephemeral and supernatural. Science doesn't accept ephemeral. A fine example right now is M theory. Although it may work mathematically to explain a lot of mysteries, without evidence that can be examined independently, then it's not considered "true" in the same way that Relativity or evolution.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 111
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:04:35 PM

Actually Gwen, this is the key to learning. A most value lesson for me was learning what to keep what to trash.


You get it! I doubt that the people trashing academia on this thread truly ever wrote a research paper. I know that they are unfamiliar with the methods of debate because they use ad hominem, red herrings, and insist that certain theories MUST be correct because they saw documentaries on TV and it made sense them to them.

Accepting outlandish ideas as fact because a person cannot reconcile things that aren't apparent to them is a logical fallacy. One example is the Dogon people who seem to have astronomical knowledge that they simply couldn't have. Now, the original research is scrutinized as being faulty and incorrect.

As for giving anecdotal advice about the villagers claim about the pyramids, the edifices were built thousands of years ago! For this information to be passed down for such a wide span of time without becoming mythologized is fairly unbelievable. While historical allegory is often found in myth and can be interpreted as showing cultural shifts, other myths are baseless. Many Native American tribes claim that their ancestors came from the middle of the earth through a hole in the ground--where's the hole? Who did the studies on these villagers? Did the researchers have their agenda prior to the studies? Does Herodotus mention such a story? How about other ancient historians?

As I said, I watched the first episode in the series mentioned and didn't watch the rest because of the provable inaccuracies in the that episode. IF the pyramid or outbuildings were scenes of
Harmonic convergence or more acurately, harmonic diagnosis and treatment
the treatments were highly ineffective. Skeletons of Egyptians show that the people suffered from severe and debilitating, diseases, their teeth were bad (very often worn down to the gum), and they suffered from parasites. Why couldn't or wouldn't such a medically advanced society do something to alleviate these problems?

There is another thread in this forum discussing the giant skeletons. Several people expressed a belief that they photos gave evidence to the existence of these giants. One post mentioned that the giants were found by a National Geographic team--the pictures were Photoshopped for a contest and there was no National Geographic excavation--yet people will fall for this type of "information."

Also, in "conversing" with members in this forum, it was obvious that some had vaguely formed ideas about other issues based on TV documentaries; if the perception of some historical aspects are not correct, how can I buy into the claims about other areas?

As new theories and "evidence" come into play, rational, logical people with a background in how to evaluate such issues do so: if the new information supersedes the old or the new theory is more logical and supported by evidence, we change our minds or we keep seeking more information to support the new theories.

Remember Piltdown man? Oh, and how about Nibiru which has supposed to have made an entrance several times but hasn't graced us with its presence yet?


Thats like saying four people can sit comfortably in a house so it MUST be an SUV because four people can also sit in one of those


No, it isn't. Houses have certain defining parameters that are quite different from the defined parameters of an SUV.

I suppose that if smells like a snake, looks like a snake, moves like a snake, and bites like a snake . . . it isn't a a snake?

While the pyramids have mysteries, no theory has been proposed that explains those mysteries.


In science, it's about evidence. Yes, the endeavour of science can get quite contentious and even acrimonious. But the bottom line to anything is, either you have the evidence or you don't. And it is the evidence - whether it can be examined and confirmed by independent sources - that usually is the final deciding factor.


Bingo! Sitchin claims that Sumeria was settled by aliens; reputable scholars scoff at him. While it is an interesting concept (I liked Stargate ), there is NO evidence that this happened.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 112
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:14:17 PM
I must add--not willing to watch the video again, I did some research online about the harmonic convergence aspects:


To expound on this premise, Seth told Jane to visualize herself at the scene of the building of the Pyramid, to which she responded, "I feel that a whole mass of people would visualize a pyramid in their imagination, then through their chanting, the use of certain vowels and pitches, they actually changed the air where that building was going to be. They made a boundary in the air, making angular gestures, a cohesiveness, for this imaginary structure. Then they had certain kinds of tuning forks, then some kind of instrument. The noise of the chant was like something that you’d use to turn on this instrument - when the chant got to a certain pitch it turned on this instrument, and it somehow intensified and focused sound to what we would call an incredible energy degree - broke it down and then focused it in certain directions. You could move very heavy objects with it. The objects were levitated - raised up in the air, no matter how heavy. They only needed to be guided by people to some degree. Many men were used to guide them but not to lift or carry them. The sound instrument had a fantastic cohesive effect that bound atoms and molecules together. Something about these instruments making atoms and molecules denser, somehow - doing different things with them.


OH! The pyramids were built using tuning forks that lifted huge blocks of stone! That certainly seems more likely than gangs of workers moving them!

The person making the claim goes on to say:
"In some respects the over enthusiastic use of the sound was responsible for the flood mentioned in the Bible, and other literature. There were several characteristics that proved difficult. Literally, the sound traveled further often than was intended, causing consequences not planned upon."
http://www.mysticalblaze.com/PlacesPyramidsBuilt.htm

Well, the flood is finally cleared up!
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 113
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 5:36:05 PM
Ahhh, I take back my previous comments lol

The locals claim the pyramids used harmonic resonance and electrostatic fields for treating illnesses, and the building nearby with three rooms with stone beds and various alcoves used harmonic resonance for diagnosis as the great pyramid at giza does generate an unusual amount of static electricity at its peak despite the rock used to built it not being metallic or conductive

I didnt realise it was actually building them with it that was being suggested
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 114
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:07:09 PM

As for giving anecdotal advice about the villagers claim about the pyramids, the edifices were built thousands of years ago! For this information to be passed down for such a wide span of time without becoming mythologized is fairly unbelievable


And yet we have christianity, islam and judaism to mention a few things that arent any different that seem to have some degree of acceptance

And the myan peoples accounts of how their culture collapsed that was dismissed for the same reason in favour of theorising plague and famine turned out to be acurate when stones detailing the cultures demise were found

Its also those same tribes that are correcting many of the translations of glyphs as even with the rosetta stone they construct has apparently been missinterpretted in its syntactic composition

But I havent seen anyone saying it was "fact" simply that all its an alternative to is theories and assumptions that also dont have "facts" to support them. No matter how specialised someone is in the regurgitation of theories and assumptions their guesses are still just guesses, nothing more

We have millions of people with countless illnesses the US itself has people who have to treat quite serious injuries themselves because 60 million americans cant afford healthcare. So by the same token the US would be viewed as without healthcare and with no form of medical knowledge or technology if their remains were discovered

And I'm sure nobody actually said treating anything with the pyramids actually "worked" as that couldnt even be determined today without knowing what they were treating and without them being restored to their origional condition AND with water running through the tunnels beneath them being fed from the nile

Even if the method didnt actually work it wouldnt matter if they "believed" it did, many cultures have also had "treatments" they believe to work that dont, and some that did but we are only just with our "immense" knowledge starting to realise now like acupuncture and using trances instead of anaesthetic for operations

But even if it didnt work (which hasnt been claimed that it did) that wouldnt stop a culture thinking it worked would it?

So pointing out they still had illnesses is the kind of response that makes people criticise academia to begin with as it isnt even a coherant of relevantly cohesive rebuttle in the first place


No, it isn't. Houses have certain defining parameters that are quite different from the defined parameters of an SUV.


I suppose that if smells like a snake, looks like a snake, moves like a snake, and bites like a snake . . . it isn't a a snake?


Actually thats the point I was making

I picked a house and an SUV because of how few similarities they have

The great pyramid at giza has no decoration, tombs do, it has no particules of either embalming material or mumified genetic material in the lidless and also undecorated sarcofigy (sp? Havent got a clue how thats spelt lol). But even after thousands of years they would be detectable

So the lack of wheels, not having an engine, windscreen wipers, a gear stick and various other things doesnt seem to stop the great pyramid being classed as a tomb (SUV)

Infact arent the pyramids that ARE known to be tombs on that site and others actually stepped pyramids rather than the sloped ones as I recall? So its not even the same design which wouldnt make it exactly a leap due to the lack of decorations that they could have served some other purpose really

As its a bit lazy to just assume they were tombs with nothing much except their vicinity to tombs and the fact theyre a type of pyramid to base the assumption on

Many "accepted" theories if scrutinised equally would also fall down if "evidence" was required as theyre only based on assumptions and guesswork in the first place

And although I do believe that any starting place however vapid or unsupported is better than none, that still doesnt alter the lack of actual proof or verifiable evidence just because its "accepted"

it also makes criticising suggesting no more than "alternate" theories due to lack of evidence academic hypocrisy when the existing ones dont have any either which if I recall was the origional point being made
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:19:23 PM
Gwendolyn2010 said:


As I said, I watched the first episode in the series mentioned and didn't watch the rest because of the provable inaccuracies in the that episode. IF the pyramid or outbuildings were scenes of

"Harmonic convergence or more acurately, harmonic diagnosis and treatment"

the treatments were highly ineffective. Skeletons of Egyptians show that the people suffered from severe and debilitating, diseases, their teeth were bad (very often worn down to the gum), and they suffered from parasites. Why couldn't or wouldn't such a medically advanced society do something to alleviate these problems?


The problem with your "inaccuracies" is that they are based on an unproven, and highly unlikely scenario - i.e., that the pyramids were built by Egyptians. Common sense indicates otherwise.

If the Egyptians built the pyramids and the sphinx, they are then the only society in human history to have appeared on the scene with a fully developed technology - which they then all forgot, all at once. They would be history's only example of a civilization built in reverse, starting at the pinnacle of science, and ending up in mud huts. This is so unlikely as to be laughable.

It makes much more sense that the pyramids were already built when the Egyptians arrived. How, when, and by whom are still mysteries - but it's a safe bet it wasn't the Egyptians.

RPL
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 116
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:53:51 PM

The problem with your "inaccuracies" is that they are based on an unproven, and highly unlikely scenario - i.e., that the pyramids were built by Egyptians. Common sense indicates otherwise.

If the Egyptians built the pyramids and the sphinx, they are then the only society in human history to have appeared on the scene with a fully developed technology - which they then all forgot, all at once. They would be history's only example of a civilization built in reverse, starting at the pinnacle of science, and ending up in mud huts. This is so unlikely as to be laughable.

It makes much more sense that the pyramids were already built when the Egyptians arrived. How, when, and by whom are still mysteries - but it's a safe bet it wasn't the Egyptians.


I started to write about the timeline of Egyptian civilization and remark that is the same fallacy that Sitchin makes with the Sumerians, but what would be the point? You offer NO evidence for your claim. It is impossible to have dialogue with someone who makes baseless claims and apparently, has no grasp of history.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 117
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 7:31:08 PM
I totally agree RPL I dont think they were built by them either. I dont know...fun fun fun
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 118
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 7:33:56 PM
Gwendolyn2010 no one can say they know history its all guesswork and almost always infiltrated by perversion somewhere along the line.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 119
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 8:20:09 PM
Gwen,

Some things are obvious ! The subject is of no real interest by many who post in this thread.'')
 Dreamer_in_SC
Joined: 6/13/2011
Msg: 120
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/27/2011 12:35:47 AM

Actually, a very good looking, suave, debonaire, man about town did describe how it could have been done very easily, and he did so a few pages back. Just incase you missed it, here it is...........

"As far as the pyramids are concerned, getting all of the blocks up to where they need to be is easy, just as making them all very straight and to the correct size. I can tell you a very easy way to get the blocks up to the top.................. Imagine the pyramid about half way built.... at the top, on the side opposite of where you want to drag a new block up, you have a weight. This weight is on a cart with rollers so that it can roll down the side it is facing. It is attached to enough ropes, probably made of hemp for strength, those ropes cross the flat part of the top of the now half built pyramid and go over rollers so they won't chaff on the edge, and down to the cart with rollers that is holding the block that is going to be pulled up. being of equal weight, it is no problem to pull the new block up, as the weight already on the top, is equal to the block being pulled up , and slides down the other side.


That has several issues. If you have ever used a rope on a square block several issues are instantly created. If you tie a rope around a square block and then pull it, the back 2 corners have a massive load on them the width of the tip of the corner. Basically put, the edge of the corners would cut any rope. Even in modern times using the strongest ropes or even steel cables would do the same thing because it creates a 90 degree bend in the rope/cable that puts too much load on too small of an area of the rope/cable.

The same thing would happen at the top in your example when the ropes are draped over top the half completed pyramid.

It does not matter what type or material of rope you use. Anytime you have any angles in it other than a strait line, you are reducing its tensile strength. Ropes like round shapes because it more evenly spreads out the tension. Problem is the blocks are not round.

Brute force and tugging and/or pushing as well as lifting is physically impossible to have been done. You can not get enough hands around it with the surface area available to have picked it up. You could not get enough ropes around it due to again limited surface area for the ropes to wrap around it to have enough force to pull it. Again we are talking about 400 ton blocks with a profile of like 4 foot of surface to wrap ropes around.

Now if they built a framework AROUND the blocks using angles in the wooden structure that turned that block into an almost sphere shape it would not take as much applied force to move then.

Kinda like how you make a starburst in 3D. Starting with a bunch of wooden triangles of various sizes you could encapsulate a square or rectangle block in the center and build it out so that only a few triangle points are touching the ground at a time thus lessening the friction. Since only a few points would be touching the ground at a time all it would take it just a small amount of force to make it lose balance and the blocks own weight would be able to be used to propel it forward.

THAT seems like a smart way to move such massive blocks. Using the blocks own weight and gravity to do most of the work. It would turn a situation needing a few thousand people using a brute force method into just needing a few people needed to move it.

shape it like an egg and you can even move it uphill the same way. Push it off balance and it moves forward till it balances itself. Turn it so the short side is facing up the hill and push it off balance again and poof it magically walks itself up hill

These are of course just my opinions and thoughts... not found on any TV documentary or anything. Original thought always comes out with simplistic solutions if not restricted by some scholastic constraint to follow in the path of others in the field so you don't make enemies.

I am always the enemy it seems. Mostly because i don't play well with others and i have never been much for that whole team work crap. I HATE social systems that create dependency issues and a bunch of intertwined and linked frameworks. Too many points of failure or errors possible that way. Rely on yourself and know who you are. That is the mantra i live by. It serves me well
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 121
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/27/2011 12:43:35 PM

At the expense of patting myself on the back, I hace to say that you are the only other person who has actually given specifics about how the blocks could have been put in place.


That would probably be because "how" they were built hasnt been the major focus of the discussion. But why, and when has been niether of which has the method of construction as being relevant

Obviously they were built, but even in that respect the acuracy of the masonry skills has tended to be far more of a topic of discussion than actually moving and placing them.

I think the most common explaination has tended to be the idea they were moved up a spiral roadway to minimise the effect of gravity on such heavy blocks (over 200 tonnes in many cases) or the pyramid being sequentially buried whilst being built

But one of the often overlooked problems with both methods is that the majority of the surrounding area is infact sand, which isnt compactable, and even on rollers such heavy weights would tend to dig in unless an almost unbroken carpet of tree trunks was used

Then when you factor in that theres over 2 million of those blocks used and dragged over fairly long distances the maths of the amount of manpower and trees needed starts to become astonomical

Thats not saying necessarily "impossible" but certainly unlikely they could have been done in anywhere near the sort of time frames claimed with that type of methodology

In more recent times even without the need to mason any stone, just dismantle, move and reassemble a structure with only around 15,000 stones weighing less than 50 tonnes it took over 5 years with modern lifting equipment and vehicular transport
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 122
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/27/2011 2:28:39 PM
The point with the recent relocation which if I recall was so a valley could be flooded for a hydro electric dam is that they used cranes and lorries to move a fraction of the amount of material a smaller distance and which weighed far less

I havent at any point disputed an older and "different" level of technological knowledge, infact quite the opposite. But the official time frame of 10 years is pretty ridiculous and has no real basis for being claimed to begin with and might as well just be a number plucked from thin air

Basically it means that they would need to quarry, mason, move and place 548 (rounded up) stones per day for the entire 1o year period across dry sand and in arid conditions

I dont think for one second without some HUGE gaps in some rather by todays standards almost "magical" methods this would be anything like achievable.

Infact even 50 years would be a pretty tight schedule for such an endeavour albeit a far more realistic time scale

Not forgetting the vast array of underground tunnels too which according to orthodox egypotology would have to have been built at the same time too if the egyptians were infact the architects as theyre also part of the construct

For me though its the location that stands out more than anything. As the norm was to build along the banks of a river. And the Nile was nowhere near the pyramids in egyptian times. So basically they decided to build them in the middle of the desert which is a bit odd as they have concourses that were built to sand at the time

So I do think they were built much earlier and quite probably by an earlier culture we just arent aware of who dwarfed the egyptians in terms of technical knowledge. Because that would give a far more plausible reason for the concourse and underground tunnels ending where they did as the nile would infact have run right along that area but about 9ooo years ago rather than 3500(ish)

Not aliens though lol

If they were built by the egyptians though I would tend to lean towards a figure more along the lines of 50-100 years construction time, perhaps more not simply due to the sheer volume of material quarried and moved, but also because of the acuracy of its placement and masoning

Whether built 3500 years or 9000 plus years ago, many of the workmanship found at various sites not only cant be explained, but even with modern machinery would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to recreate and doesnt appear to have been reproduced in ordinary buildings known to have been constructed in not just egyptian times, but all other times since until we get to very modern times

Which could quite concievably indicate that whoever did know those particular techniques for masoning stone wasnt around or actually builting anything for most of the last 3000 years
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 123
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/27/2011 3:23:35 PM
Losing a specific area of knowledge due to the problems with passing it on from person to person I do see as valid

But for me it still revolves around the numbers, 2 million pieces of masoned stone at the pyramids at giza alone

You would need not only hundreds of thousands of labourers, but probably tends of thousands of extremely specialised skilled craftsmen. How many people were actually IN that culture?

Then you need to remove the soldiers, farmers, traders, children, royalty and court and all other non masonry professions and still have that many left

It would also require a LOT of training to have that many trained craftsmen, which also brings it back to the lack of similar masonic skills shown in more ordinary structures as that would be the logical and practical place for those people to practise that art or huge amounts of quarried stone used for practise, millions of chunks of it that just wasnt ever used for anything except that purpose

Which as you have just pointed out is even with a very conservative estimate going to have taken as long, if not longer to have accomplished than the entire time its claimed the pyramids were built in

So you then have a set of skills not seen before or since, that were compiled just for a single purpose, werent used in any other pursuits and required immense amounts of people to learn which as with any other skill would only have had a certain degree of success too

And all that plus the entire building process it seems would still need to have been pretty much within a 10 year period as no mention is given of any time spent preparing for the exercise

And when you then also consider that the three pyramids at giza are far from the only ones claimed to have been built by the egyptians the amount of stones is probably going to start heading towards 10 million units fairly easily

I think that silly ideas like lifting rocks with a tuning fork are about the only way it WOULD have been possible in that time frame tbh, which due to the seemingly ludicrous nature of that idea would make it far more likely the process spanned many many decades rather than just one, maybe even a century or more infact
 Dreamer_in_SC
Joined: 6/13/2011
Msg: 124
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/27/2011 3:37:17 PM

whoever did know those particular techniques for masoning stone wasnt around or actually builting anything for most of the last 3000 years


People would likely crap if it ever turned out to be discovered it was done by just a handful of people using vats of acid for rapid accurate stone cutting, geometric capsules to make them easier to move, and an assembly line of platforms rocking back and forth in a coral for automatic transport to the location. Then a couple people tossing a net and pulling it off balance after a few framework modifications which would cause them to walk there way up to where they are needed. Set on top clay mud in a channel frame to prevent it from squeezing out makes it slippery enough to match them up face to face.

Super fast, Super easy, No need for a massive crew of workers and just simple knowledge of chemistry, geometry, and basic hydraulics is all that is needed for wisdom to get it done

Just my opinions at least. I see things differently than most on the subject. I am aware of that. For me at least, the simplest answer with the least amount of work required always makes more sense to me since since they are traits that we all seem to share. We automatically find the easiest ways to do things and have to be trained to do things other than the easy way.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 125
view profile
History
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/27/2011 3:53:59 PM
Actually I do kind of like the acid idea albeit only being practical for purely flat faces of stone, although I dont know enough about chemistry to be able to consider the feasibility of it when the quantities involved and the fact it was granite are factored in

But it would also introduce the need to not only "roll" the stones, but at first thought to also be able to lift them too which albeit less time than hand masoning would still add time and technology for them to be acid leveled on all faces without any form of lifting holes being present

Assuming acid could easily reduce granite, and that such quantities of suitable acids could be manufactured tho though its a neat idea

That would just leave the perfect holes, detail work, irregular shaped but perfectly interlocking stones and the tunnels and rooms inside the pyramids which were all created after construction as being as yet unexplained

But its one less unknown if possible or likely
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > megalithic construction