Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

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  > pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Deceased~
Joined: 9/16/2007
Msg: 2
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methodsPage 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
I will post my theory to be analyzed far into the reaches of time :)

I think it was a matter of floating the rocks. If you take a boat that displaces an amount of water that weighs more than the boat, it floats on the top of the water.

Likewise, the same thing happens with a huge stone weighing tons. It is not able to "sink" to the bottom of the desert sand, so it basically "floats" on the top of the sand. Now take a little ingenuity regarding boats (which the Egyptians were quite familiar with) and the principles of irrigation and replace the water with sand and you might be able to manage to move the stones over the surface of the sand and remove sand to lower stones and add sand to raise stones, etc.
 *Eiledon*
Joined: 8/6/2007
Msg: 3
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 12/19/2007 8:36:22 PM
Here's an interesting theory from German scholar Franz Löhner:

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

The technology could very conceivably been used by the Ancient Egyptians, especially given their ship-building expertise.
 Deceased~
Joined: 9/16/2007
Msg: 4
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 12/20/2007 2:44:04 AM
Nice idea there but how about using a "water wheel" type of arrangement instead of pulleys? Water poured into the buckets of the wheel will turn the wheel and wrap a rope around the axle of the wheel and pull the stone up the side. Now if instead of water, you use a "sand wheel" you have a bunch of guys pouring the sand into the buckets of the wheel and that is heavier than water and pulls much harder. You don't have to worry about ramps and lubrication.

The wheel (or several) is on the top level of the pyramid at any given time and when done, it is dismantled and the wood used for anything else.

The sand would fall right at the edge of the wheel as it turns and the same sand would be recycled over and over. In essence, you would be breaking the weight of a given stone into many different pieces (the size of a bucket of sand or several) and that would make it easy to lift or move without actually cutting the stone into those pieces. Lock the wheel at any given time when it was time for supper and the stone would happily sit there all night - halfway up the pyramid.

You could use the same wheel to drag the stone according to how long a rope you could make. The wheel could be transported very easily and another drag set up. Mile after mile, the stone would move as easily as playing with sand at the beach.
 *Eiledon*
Joined: 8/6/2007
Msg: 5
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 12/21/2007 4:47:18 AM

how about using a "water wheel" type of arrangement instead of pulleys? Water poured into the buckets of the wheel will turn the wheel and wrap a rope around the axle of the wheel and pull the stone up the side.


It would be far more labour-intensive fetching water or sand than just using their own body weight and muscle, no?

Also note, as per Löhner's explanation:


This is also not a pulley or a pulley block, these use wheels and have an axle which were both not known at that time. The illustration shows a pulley block with several wheels used for a sailing rig, but those were also not known during the 4th dynasty of the Old Kingdom. The rope roll is a simple device - all you need to make one is some wooden planks, a wooden crossbeam and copper sheets for the bearings.


The beauty of his theory is the slope of the pyramid itself is the ramp.

Brilliantly efficient!

It certainly would have allowed completion in the estimated building timeframe with a manageable workforce.

We'll probably never know exactly how the pyramids were constructed, but it is fascinating to consider all the possible ways it could have been done!

Of course, some theories are just merely amusing...
 Deceased~
Joined: 9/16/2007
Msg: 6
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 12/21/2007 6:13:35 AM
Fact is, that the so called "rope pull" is a pulley in the sense of the physics involved. Calling it by a different name does not make it something different nor operate differently. If the Egyptians were capable of putting an axle into a bearing hole and (as suggested in the link) even making the consideration that a copper bearing would make it easier, they would be capable of building the sand wheel as I've described.

The theory is obviously not scientific because any first year physics student would know what a pulley was without having to be shown a picture of one.

The assertion that the rope pull is not a pulley because it is not a "wheel" is just absurd. The person making that statement does not have a good grip on the principles of basic physics. The term "wheel" is more a descriptive name than an actual object. The rope pull has an axle the diameter of about six inches and that is the exact same thing as a six inch diameter pulley. The fact that the "wheel" part is the same diameter as the axle makes no difference. It is still a "wheel" and it is still a "pulley." Even a rolling log is basically a wheel from a physics standpoint. It has no mechanical advantage where the sand wheel would have an enormous mechanical advantage. Instead of 48 men, the wheel would lift the stone with perhaps only ten men (according to how quickly you wished to feed the wheel).

As for labor intensive, it would take far more labor to construct rails up the side of the pyramid than to haul a little sand there initially. If 48 men are capable of pulling 2.5 tons of stone, then those same 48 men would be capable of carrying 2.5 tons of sand in buckets to the top of the pyramid one time. Moreover, if you combined the two theories and had a "rope pull" at the top edge of the pyramid, then the wheel could be sitting on the ground level and there would be all the sand you'd ever need.

The thing that has always been humorous to me is that whenever people talk about the pyramids, they always make the statements as to whether the Egyptians were aware or not aware of certain things. They make these assumptions based on archaeological data. I agree that it is a relatively safe thing to make logical assumptions but it does not always follow that there will be archaeological evidence of something. As example, I have from time to time fashioned some impromptu tool to get a job done but saw no reason to make a permanent record of the design of it. In essence, there is no reason to enshrine a hammer or a rope pull or even a large sand wheel and such is how the phrase "not written in stone" came about. Just because nobody bothered to record the idea of the water wheel until 400BC does not mean that people couldn't have thought of it and used it earlier than that.

Many theories on the pyramids propose that sand was used to hold stones in place and then allowing the sand to run out would close an opening, etc. It isn't a stretch to imagine that someone might have made the connection between the way water flows into an irrigation ditch and the way sand flows as well. Certainly anyone who picks up a bucket of water or a bucket of sand knows instantly the effect the sand has in terms of weight.

If one wishes to speculate, the design of such a wheel could have been in some scroll in the library at Alexandria and been destroyed.

I personally have always thought that the best way to position a stone into an exact place would be with a counterweight of sand. How long does it take to shovel some sand into a container compared to trying to manhandle a 2.5 ton stone into place? When you have the stone suspended in that manner, you can remove sand from the counterweight and basically have the effect of a very light stone just resting on a surface and be able to move it carefully while someone has their finger against the edge of the stone and the edge of where the stone should be. When there, you remove more sand and it is in place. if you have made a mistake, a few shovel fulls of sand back in the counterweight container and you get a quick retry.

You only have to fill the counterweight once. When one stone is in place, it holds the counter weight up and you merely attach another stone to the counterweight and release the first one. The only shoveling of sand is in taking the stone up a few inches or feet and removing some to let it down. This is not theory at all. I have done this. Instead of sand, I used iron weights. You can move very heavy objects all over the place with just a beam resting on an A-frame.

I have been in countless situations during my life where the proper tool or material is not at hand. You stop, look around you, and decide if anything you see can be of use. Now it doesn't take a genius to realize that if you are building a pyramid, there is an awful lot of sand hanging around that might just be useful for something, eh?

That is how things are built - with common sense, whether it is a pyramid or a fantastic new engineering process.
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 10
The P¥RÅMIÐS
Posted: 12/27/2007 12:18:39 AM
The Force perhaps, used they did.

Or maybe, in the future distant, created were they; then back through time, sent they were.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 11
view profile
History
The P¥RÅMIÐS
Posted: 12/27/2007 1:21:36 AM

Or maybe, in the future distant, created were they; then back through time, sent they were.

I vote for this. Since there's no evidence, and someone suggested it online, it is obviously true, and there's a massive worldwide conspiracy by the Jewish Illuminati NWO evil scientists to cover up the REAL story of lizard aliens from a future Sumeria! Clearly you have all been fooled, and it is because your brains have been poisoned by mercury vaccinations for diseases which don't really exist and fluoride in your water for teeth which were actually implanted before birth in order to slowly release mind-control substances.

You are all insane government puppets and have been duped! Only WE, who avoided indoctrination in so-called unive...er... Oh. That's me. Sorry. Carry on.
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 12
view profile
History
The P¥RÅMIÐS
Posted: 12/27/2007 2:09:10 PM
I have thought about this for years.. and I have been fascinated by Egypt since I was about 7... I've read everything I could ever get my hands on about them

I wish I had Warren Buffets money.. I would set up a challenge to anyone who could actually recreate the Great Pyramid without modern machinery. (pulleys, wheels and oxen allowed, as well as as much manpower as necessary)

I am doubtful anyone could do it... and I don't know why. I honestly think we have no idea how it was done, nor could we copy it. I have no reason why I think this.. it's a complete mystery to me. But I do. Do I have any ideas about how I think they might have done it? No.

Sad, isn't it. But every time I look at what we know, or the theories, it just doesn't look right somehow. I do know that the idea that they had millions of slaves is wrong. The people of Egypt considered working on their monuments as an honour.. and it was like military, everyone put in their time. I'm not saying slaves weren't used, just that it wasn't the complete workforce. Plus it has been suggested that the Great Pyramid took something like 40 years to complete. Wow. Even then it's an amazing thing. It is crafted with incredible precision.. and the building block are colossal.. just placing them would have been a herculean effort. Much less to the exactness they are set. Weirdly, it doesn't have the characteristics of a tomb.. no carving, writing or painting.. which is bizarre when you consider that the rituals for a funeral, especially of a Pharoah, were extremely complicated, covered over seventy days and included the spells, rituals and magic inherent in the paintings in the tombs. Every piece of a person's life was illustrated and celebrated and many hymns, prayers and such were offered to the gods by way of art, song, paintings, writings. Yet in Giza... nothing. Makes you wonder if it was really a tomb at all. These are people who carved and painted almost every surface of their buildings... think about it.

Just my opinion
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 13
view profile
History
The P¥RÅMIÐS
Posted: 12/27/2007 2:15:26 PM
Concrete. Quarry the limestone, mix with water, let it set.

The lack of external markings is no surprise. What's left is not the original exterior, which was actually a smooth limestone facade. Would have looked pretty stunning in the desert sun. The size and splendor of it would have been a statement in itself.
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 16
view profile
History
The P¥RÅMIÐS
Posted: 12/27/2007 5:54:35 PM
Frogo

I know the exterior was covered with limestone "tiles".. quite stunning I would think and probably visible in the sunlight for a LONG ways.

It's the interior lack of decoration that is so atypical, all other royal tombs and temples are highly decorated, even if they have faded over the eons. Not even a signature. Though I believe there is some ancient graffiti in the entranceways and in the city beyond where the workmen and priests lived.

And there were two main chambers found.. the "Kings Chamber" and a smaller one.. the "Queens Chamber" I believe the rest are causeways or halls of some sort... There was a stone box.. supposedly a sarcophagus... but nothing else
 Deceased~
Joined: 9/16/2007
Msg: 29
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 1/12/2008 3:37:51 AM

I'm not entirley certain how relevent this is but here's a video of one man moving giant rocks by himself simply by being clever:


Excellent reference. That is exactly what I was trying to say. You will notice he did not carve the methods used to erect the lentel "stone" into the face. The video may not last for thousands of years but that construction (if made of stone instead of concrete) may very well be there for a time longer than anyone will know how they were erected.

I believe the same thing happened with the pyramids. They did it, only a few people thought it was that big a deal (note the size of the small crowd in the video - mostly family) and when done, people just accepted the pyramids were there and thought no more about them than the average bank teller wonders how the bill counter actually works.
 mio310
Joined: 1/9/2008
Msg: 31
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 1/12/2008 11:30:42 PM
your post is riddled with lies. we can easily build the pyramids today. we also know how they built the pyramids. no mysteries at all.
 MONEMPERER
Joined: 6/26/2006
Msg: 32
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:17:31 AM
what I really want to know is who built the pyramids and the Sphinx because the accepted theory about khufu building the pyramid is a damn lie.

His name was found by an archeologist studying the pyramid and who had to leave his dig in 2 weeks and then accidentally stumbled upon Khufu's name on the great pyramid. What is really weird is the name is spelt wrong and its the only name on any of the pyramids there is no artwork on the inside there is massive differences between the great pyramids and the rest of the pyramids in the area.

Also another weird thing is go and try and dig under the sphinx in egypt they will not allow you to do it which is suprising with the legend surrounding the Sphinx about the library of all of human history being under there.

Also the Sphinx is over 12 000 years old this is based around water marks on the Sphinx.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 1/16/2008 7:46:33 PM

I vote for this. Since there's no evidence, and someone suggested it online, it is obviously true, and there's a massive worldwide conspiracy by the Jewish Illuminati NWO evil scientists to cover up the REAL story of lizard aliens from a future Sumeria! Clearly you have all been fooled, and it is because your brains have been poisoned by mercury vaccinations for diseases which don't really exist and fluoride in your water for teeth which were actually implanted before birth in order to slowly release mind-control substances.

You are all insane government puppets and have been duped! Only WE, who avoided indoctrination in so-called unive...er... Oh. That's me. Sorry. Carry on.


Nice to see you have a sense of humour, FrogO_Oeyes.

As a woodworker what amazes me is how few people ever mention twine or string. I see most of the layout work being done with twine and pythagoreas sort of work. I'd really be more interested in knowing about how the MATH and the angles got done than the physical part. To me that is much more impressive.
Now you know why Euclid's The Elements has 12 books on the geometry of shapes that are simple by modern concepts. The Pythagorean Theorem and trigonometry has always impressed me as incredibly useful. Until recently, rope and twine was used for everything, and you could mark them, so you could use them to measure a full kilometer. If you throw in a sextant, or a protractor, you could measure the angles. Now, say you wanted an accurate measurement of the height of a tall building, so you could make sure that the height of each block was correct. You could measure the angle from a kilometer away, using your rope and the protractor, just by marking off the angle on the protractor. Then using the same protractor, and another 3 more marked ropes, you could set up a very small triangle, say about a metre long, on the ground, with the same angle, and you could measure the height very accurately. Then, multiply by 1000, and you have the height of your building. If you employed 2 people to take such measurements all the time, you could work with a 3-D blueprint, and always get everything to the correct height. It's all a matter of triangles.

I've seen loads of posters claim that they could build a pyramind easily. So I'm afraid that I just don't want to get into a flame war.

But I could see a few ways of doing it. Especially since the ancient peoples seem very aware of all sorts of construction methods, such as the Chinese rope-bridge. Apparently it's really efficient. When I watched a few programmes on building it, the modern people still didn't manage to do it right.

Just as an example: when I was a kid we had to move the furniture around, because my dad was very ill from when we were babies. We found out that a few things:
1) The main problem with lifting furniture was when it was standing, once you tilted it and lifted the corner that was closest to the ground so that it wasn't touching the ground, it became very easy to move around. The only problem was in lifting that corner off the ground in the beginning, and lowering that corner in the end.
2) When we wanted to move something a long distance, it was much easier if we had a thing like a blanket, or rollers to let it slide. But we never had enough blanket or rollers to move it very far. What we did was to use 2 blankets, or 2 sets of rollers. We would lay down the blankets, then move it over the first one easily, until it was sitting on the second. Then we'd pick up the first one and put it in front of the second and ease it across. It seems more laborious, but with practice we could move heavy things really quickly.
 Twill348
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 43
view profile
History
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 3/10/2009 6:28:29 PM
"To put it bluntly no accomplishment of so called modern day mans cunstruction can withstand the sands of time as thy Pyramids have."

How about a big'ole pile of rocks?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 51
view profile
History
pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods
Posted: 5/3/2010 12:27:40 PM
Unfortunately, that doesn't explain the Sphinx, which has been partially buried by the sands... Also, any evidence that the level of the desert had significantly dropped would be welcome. Otherwise, it's just a cute idle speculation.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > pyramids--we still don't know their actual construction methods