|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > Supported Forums > Brian's Science & Nature Shack > How the pyramids were built... |
| Moderated by: Brian | Page:   1 2 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's very easy to picture these "trains" moving toward the pyramid. As the counterweight began to move the operator would have to continue adding water because more and more stones are being accelerated. When the sled reached the ramp at the bottom of the pyramid it would begin slowing and the pull on the lead stone would decrease. When the sled stopped the lead stone would stop as well but the coupling would still be putting force on the trailing stones. This would cause the "train" to compress back to its original position just like a stretched spring resumes its shape when the forces are removed. The counterweight would be reset and the ropes shortened and the "train", "spring", "stones" would again be stretched out one at a time.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Last edited on 03:59 am by cladking |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://images.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?c=ummu2ic;chaperone=S-UMMU2IC-X-LS000129%20LS000129;evl=full-image;chaperone=S-UMMU2IC-X-LS000129%20LS000129;quality=2;view=entry;subview=detail;cc=ummu2ic;entryid=x-ls000129;viewid=LS000129;start=1;resnum= Here is the plan for a mastaba. The plan is flawed somewhat since it fails to show the connection of the underground tunnel to the rest of the structure or that it almost certainly has the opening to the top. The mastaba is the apparent predecessor to the pyramids. Many of them pre-date the pyramids. This is a simply fascinating design for me since it forms an almost perfect design for a well head. The four chambers would fill up until the water emerged from the lowest set of slits and out the front of the building. If a slit plugged up from debris it would simply raise the level slightly on the others. This debris could be easily pulled out from the back if water levels rose and the operator could see the obstruction to direct the removal from the front. Screens on the front slits would trap fish within and then plugging the outlet would the fish could be diverted into sieves at the rear of the structure. The bent shaft at the bottom would slow water and the open top would allow it to escape without damaging anything when it came with excessive force. There was probably a wooden and rope system operated from the top to regulate flow into each of these. Obviosly not every mastaba ever built in Egypt was made for irrigation or water control. Some were made simply for burials. But water control seems the most likely original use for them and these evolved into the step pyramid, to the pyramid, to the Great Pyramid. It would seem that it was only after the loss of increasing numbers of water sources that these were abandoned and the various regions turned over to use as necropoli. The original inhabitants would have simply piled rocks about to divert the water for useful purposes. This simply proved ineffective and highly labor intensive as they were frequently breached and destroyed by the water. This could be devastating to crops so there was great impetus to develope the technology to control this water. Normally flow would start gradually but under some conditions caused by tides, pressure gradients, and sudden inlet flooding there could be extreme pressure when the water started.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.catchpenny.org/chamber.html They are finally releasing information about some of the passages and conduits in the Giza Plateau. These were probably used to operate and convey water to the pyramids.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://espah.tripod.com/europeanlibrary/id18.html There is increasing speculation we've had it all wrong all along. Where ever the truth lies it seems likely that the status quo will be stood on its ear. One suspects that this knowledge is not entirely surprising to everyone. This link is not for the faint of heart.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK. here is perhaps the most interesting tidbit I've found yet. It is from W. F. Petrie's Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Giza)- 1883. "The plan of the passages was certainly altered once, and perhaps oftener, during the course of building. The shaft, or "well", leading from the N. end of the gallery down to the subterranean parts, was either not contemplated at first, or else was forgotten in the course of building; the proof of this is that it has been cut through the masonry after the courses were completed. On examining the shaft, it is found to be irregularly tortuous through the masonry, and without any arrangement of the blocks to suit it; while in more than one place a corner of a block may be seen left in the irregular curved side of the shaft, all the rest of the block having disappeared in cutting the shaft. This is a conclusive point, since it would never have been so built at first. A similar feature is at the mouth of the passage, in the gallery. Here [p. 215] the sides of the mouth are very well cut, quite as good work as the dressing of the gallery walls; but on the S. side there is a vertical joint in the gallery side, only 5.3 inches from the mouth. Now, great care is always taken in the Pyramid to put large stones at a corner, and it is quite inconceivable that a Pyramid builder would put a mere slip 5.3 thick beside the opening to a passage. It evidently shows that the passage mouth was cut out after the building was finished in that part. It is clear, then, that the whole of this shaft is an additional feature to the first plan." This will require some thought but My early reaction is that it is consistent with the construction of the Great Pyramid over an existing pyramid. I've found an online version of the book and hope to find much more. http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/index.htm
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I found what appears to be a much more scholarly work on water erosion at the Sphinx. The following is the link and some excerps; http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name...icle&sid=93 "With regard to the location of the Sphinx, the fact that the degradation of the Sphinx enclosure is more intense in the west and, moreover, is restricted to the walls of the enclosure is highly significant. Although arid conditions dominated during the dynastic period of Egyptian history, wetter periods are known to have been experienced up until as late as the end of the 5th Dynasty (OC approximately 2350 BC). [26] So, the rainy conditions of 5000 to 7000 BC, to which Schoch attributed the degradation of the Sphinx, were separated from the later arid conditions by a transitional phase which, between the Predynastic period and the end of the 5th Dynasty, was characterised by an increasingly arid climate interrupted by occasional, probably heavy, seasonal rains. The Giza necropolis sits on a gently sloping limestone plateau, which falls from its highest point in the west (beyond the pyramid of Khafre) for a distance of over one and a half kilometres before reaching the former limit of Nile inundation (a short distance east of the Sphinx). With limited vegetation or sub-soil cover, sporadic heavy rainfall would have quickly saturated the fine grained limestones which form the surface of the plateau. Any excess water, unable to infiltrate through the saturated surface, would have been shed downslope as run-off. Although these rain-storms would have been of short duration, the momentum gained by run-off across an extensive catchment (such as that at Giza) must have produced surface flows capable of significant erosion. The presence of a small wadi to the north of the Sphinx (as already discussed above) suggests that the area originally lay within part of the natural drainage system of the Giza plateau. This natural drainage system may actually have been modified by the excavation of the Sphinx but the extent of any such modification cannot be assessed with any certainty. However, the important issue is that the eastward sloping topography of the site, together with the orientation of the Sphinx enclosure and any effect the excavation of the Sphinx may have had on the local surface hydrology, is likely to have led to the discharge of run-off into the west part of the Sphinx enclosure, eroding the limestone along the exposed western enclosure walls and selectively exploiting any joints exposed along the cut face. This rainfall run-off model is fully consistent with the distribution of the degradation which is present within the Sphinx enclosure. Not only would rainfall run-off lead to more intense degradation in the western part of the Sphinx enclosure but the less intense degradation elsewhere is also explained. Comparatively little run-off will have discharged over the exposed faces in the east of the enclosure and the body of the Sphinx generated little run-off itself as it was isolated from the plateau by the surrounding excavation of the Sphinx enclosure. So, the more intense degradation of the western walls of the Sphinx enclosure can be readily explained by the erosive potential of rainfall run-off. However, although erosion by run-off appears to offer the most likely explanation for observed features, it is important to give consideration to other processes in order to establish whether the degradation of the Sphinx enclosure could, perhaps, be explained in some other way. Having already identified the problems associated with the wet sand hypothesis, I considered if there were any means by which chemical weathering and exfoliation may have led to the pattern of degradation which could be observed. The effects of chemical weathering could be modified in three ways: (1) By certain exposures being protected from degradation by, for example, accumulations of wind blown sand. Under such a scenario, unprotected areas would be more heavily degraded; (2) By variations in the intensity of chemical weathering itself, brought about by factors such as aspect (i.e. the orientation of an exposure with respect to the sun); (3) By the effect of sand abrasion. Given the dominant northerly wind direction and the easterly slope of the plateau, dry, windblown sand is most likely to start filling the Sphinx enclosure from the north and west, with the covering of windblown sand protecting the underlying exposures. The exposures which were the first to be covered with sand are therefore those in the west of the enclosure - which happen to be the most heavily degraded." This dovetails with the flow of water from above at the site of the pyramids. The water flowed naturally around a hard spot in the rock which was later to become The Sphinx. The top of this rock was hard limestone which sat on softer material which would become the neck. The causeway followed the original river bed and deviated only enough to circumvent The Sphinx which was likely already carved and somewhat old. Water flowed normally around this structure before and after completion of the pyramids. The enclosure was heavily eroded by a steady stream of water. This would flow only from July to September and only when it was in excess. Weathering is nearly non-existent on the east side of the enclosure because there would have been a wide dam to retain water in this area for effect. The dam would have taken all the wear.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Love your passion on this.... 
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote:
There is great precedent for this. Even Sir Isaac newton (one of my heros) was drawn to the study of these pyramids and particularly the Great Pyramid. William Flinders Petrie in the forward to his landmark work observed thusly; "The Great Pyramid has lent its name as a sort of by-word for paradoxes; and, as moths to a candle, so are theorisers attracted to it. The very fact that the subject was so generally familiar, and yet so little was accurately known about it, made it the more enticing; there were plenty of descriptions from which to choose, and yet most of them were so hazy that their support could be claimed for many varying theories." There is a tendency for all researchers of the pyramids to exclude evidence which doesn't fit their preconcieved notions while embracing those which do. I'm sure to some extent I'm guilty of this as well since I have come up with several things which aren't entirely consistent. Don't get me wrong, if there were even one fact that was inconsistent then I'd give it up in a heartbeat. If the nonconsistent things built up like a wall of water smashing orthodoxy then I'd give it up as well. But the consistencies and solved mysteries just keep falling into place. I get the sense that a cursory examination of the actual structures would quickly lead to proof positive. One of the things which has troubled me from very early on was the fact that the route of the passage leading down from the grand gallery has been described as "tortuous". I could come up with no reason that the original pyramid which I suppose surrounded this passage would not be regular in its construction. But the recent discovery that this passage was added only later clears this up. It does open up other questions. I guess if I keep screaming this nonsense long enough, someone is going to either prove it's right or prove it's wrong. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well I think it is very intellectually stimulating and I appreciate the effort you make. Maybe one day you can put together a formal paper on it and get it published!
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cladking Original500© Member temporal wanderer
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There have been a couple to fact come to light which have seriosly damaged this theory. The more important is that Vyse did excavate the pit in The Great Pyramid in the mid-'18th century. He found it to have four straight sides down with two extending down even further as though work was suddenly halted. The only cause consistent with the theory I can come up with is that they were aiming for the primary water source but determined they must have missed it. Presumably they would still have water at the grotto so this may not be a fatal problem. The other fact is that it has been reported that the "structures" at Ahmenenhat I's pyramid is just debris which has been removed from the area. I've been toying with the idea that the Bible was a compilation of all the oldest writings and oral traditions which preceded them. Seen in this light there are some interesting and possibly relevant passages in it. There is a description of a temple with water flowing from under it though the story is ascribed to a much later time and a different place. There is an interesting line in Genesis that in the beginning there was water flowing up from the ground and watering it. There are a couple other lines as well. Apparently there was also a Western Nile which flowed by Giza from the west in the Libyan desert. Interestingly the headwaters for this lie almost directly on the source for The Great Man-Made River Project in Libya. This is a massive irrigation project to carry aquafer water to the parched coast of Libya. There are numerous references in the bible to Egyptian forests. Perhaps it was the Western Nile which was channeled to the Giza plateau? This probably couldn't get the water to a useable level so they'd have needed a method to lift it. There's probably not a lot farther I can go with this without better resource material.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > Supported Forums > Brian's Science & Nature Shack > How the pyramids were built... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez