How were the PYRAMIDS built ?
For those of you interested in archeology, the question of " how " the pyramids were constructed, remains something of a mystery..In fact quite a big mystery.
Most experts go for either the lever/pulley theory or variants of the sand ramp theory.
But there is a third plausible method..
One that suggests that the Egyptians virtually "poured" a mix of limestone etc into wooden forms on site as it were.
If this is true, then the notion that limestone concrete was invented by the romans, would have to be looked at again..as well as re-writing history..But then there are a lot of old academic reputations that stand in the way of this theory.
I know, It flies in the face of most conventional thinking, but is this pouring method possible ?
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1a.html
Most experts go for either the lever/pulley theory or variants of the sand ramp theory.
But there is a third plausible method..
One that suggests that the Egyptians virtually "poured" a mix of limestone etc into wooden forms on site as it were.
If this is true, then the notion that limestone concrete was invented by the romans, would have to be looked at again..as well as re-writing history..But then there are a lot of old academic reputations that stand in the way of this theory.
I know, It flies in the face of most conventional thinking, but is this pouring method possible ?
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1a.html
Comments
then those 7 people each convince 7 other people that they should build a pyramid.
then those 7 convince 7 more, so on and so forth, until next thing you know the first guy has a pyramid.
Originally posted by aquafire
I know, It flies in the face of most conventional thinking, but is this pouring method possible ?
yes, but does it really matter?
Originally posted by aquafire
One that suggests that the Egyptians virtually "poured" a mix of limestone etc into wooden forms on site as it were.
I'm certain that it would be easy to examine the limestone blocks from the pyramids and distinguish poured blocks of limestone cement from blocks cut from naturally formed limestone.
Besides structural and chemical differences which I don't know enough geology to comment on, poured blocks would have different edge markings than chiseled blocks, and the blocks would contain inclusions of all sorts of construction site detritus that would inevitably contaminate the cement -- bits of straw, hair, wood, ash, food particles, leaves, etc.
The only possible role for this hypothetical Egyptian cement that I can imagine, which wouldn't already be widely known from previous archeological studies, would be in some sort of intermediate construction step, such as temporary ramps and temporary supports.
I'd imagine that the most likely case is what's been mentioned, that the ramps were fabricated in a fashion like this. But of course there have been all these attempts to use the other methods too, and while they've been somewhat successful in completing work, it took way too long to complete even small volumes, especially at the corners.
Originally posted by Willoughby
aliens. it was definitely the aliens
Amen
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Thing is, if they were poured, why make blocks? By the time they got around to Chufu's pyramid, I would imagine they would figure out how to use control joints instead of individual blocks.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by " control Joints ".
As far as the theory goes, it would have meant individual stones being poured within wooden stays. A period of time would have transpired before each of these "blocks" would have set hard.
The remarkable thing is that, as the link shows, tests were carried out based on formulas discovered in a set of Glyph writings. The authorities in Egypt refused to allow materials to be taken from around the pyramid sites, so the archeologists concerned, simulated as close as possible an aternative limestone/clay mix.
After pouring, they found that the fossil materials remained imbedded in the same way as hewn limestone. There was no "settling " or seperation of materials, but an even distribution throughout..
Originally posted by aquafire
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by " control Joints ".
As far as the theory goes, it would have meant individual stones being poured within wooden stays. A period of time would have transpired before each of these "blocks" would have set hard.
The remarkable thing is that, as the link shows, tests were carried out based on formulas discovered in a set of Glyph writings. The authorities in Egypt refused to allow materials to be taken from around the pyramid sites, so the archeologists concerned, simulated as close as possible an aternative limestone/clay mix.
After pouring, they found that the fossil materials remained imbedded in the same way as hewn limestone. There was no "settling " or seperation of materials, but an even distribution throughout..
Does such a model accurately represent the immense weight of the real deal? Sure, in my little model it doesn't settle but does that REALLY reflect how it would have happened on such a large scale?
Also, comparative weight bearing / compression tests ( hewn vs poured ) would clinch it one way or another.
Originally posted by aquafire
Yes.
Comparative weight bearing / compression tests ( hewn vs poured ) would clinch it one way or another.
COMMENCE COMPRESSION. Tell us when you finish.
Originally posted by BR
COMMENCE COMPRESSION. Tell us when you finish.
Huff Huff Huff.More compression coming...
I will research this topic a little more...
In my limited knowledge of all things solid, I would hazard a guess that poured stone has a BR's chance in heaven of remaining solid over 4 millenium of weather and weight. Especially due to the fact they supposedly mixed water in with 'stone and fossilites'. No way in hell those blocks would still be here today.
The final nail in this theory (which the author blindly omits) is that the Pyramids were covered for most of their life by a layer of tight-fitting marble (until the Cairo earthquake). How does he explain that? Poured marble? Please.
Cast-in-place concrete (aka, in situ concrete) is the method the romans used. It's done on a large scale and takes advantage of the plastic qualities of concrete. You create a very large formwork at a certain thickness, and pour the liquid concrete in, then let it cure. When it cures, you remove the formwork, and you can go back and add another layer of concrete on top until you've gone as high as you need. It saves time and allows for larger more unique shapes like domes or other curves. But if you make the formwork depth too small ,you make more work for yourself. If you make it too thick, it takes too long for the concrete to cure, if at all.
Anyway, the concrete theory helps in two respects: time and consistency.
It depends on the weight of the aggregate block as opposed to the quarried block. If the concrete is significantly lighter than the quarried real deal, then it will be easier to hoist the block into place, possibly with less man-power. That's important because while some have successfully built sections like the pyramid, the problem has always been the amount of labor needed, and the time it took to assemble the pieces. The concrete theory doesn't change the fact that the formed blocks would have to be moved into place. Only a cast-in-place solution would solve the hoisting problem, and that clearly wasn't used or else we wouldn't have big blocky pieces in crumbled corners. (Even in the case of in situ concrete, the problem would be how they got the liquid concrete up the pyramid and into the forms -- archimedes screw? a lot of sacks?)
The concrete formwork would also help standardize the blocks, potentially reducing the amount of precision work and getting the pieces to fit so tightly. They would need at least three forms: corner, side and interior. To have the absolute minimum margin for error, they would have to use the same three original forms to cast all of the block. If they reproduced the block forms, each one would be slightly different, another margin of error. In that case, they would probably end up tweaking the final cast forms as necessary by hand, which would explain all the chisel marks all over the blocks. But that sort of negates the advantage of standardizing the formwork -- you would get the same result by quarrying blocks individually, and the quarried stone is probably less temperamental when it comes to chiseling than the concrete.
There are disadvantages to using this concrete block method too. While it does standardize the blocks, that means that al the blocks are off by the same margin of error, no matter how few forms were used. Neglecting the individual differences in the cast blocks, each single run of block would be off-plumb or off-level by a multiple of the slight margin of error in the individual block times the number of blocks in that line. In the case of the Great Pyramids, we're talking about hundreds of blocks in a single line, two orders of magnitude to exaggerate the error that can't be avoided in the module. If the corners of the pyramids are not perfectly equal, they will not meet at a point at the top. If they are all equal but off-line equally, they will meet at a point, but the line will be skewed or twisted. The pyramids culminate at a point perfectly at the center of the base, the lines of the corners are perfectly straight. This is a problem inherent to building off a base module -- you sacrifice the overall alignment and dimension of the thing for the consistency of the individual unit.
In order to avoid this compromise, you have to meet an overall dimension and then work down into smaller divisions of the larger whole. Each individual piece will vary more, but you're guaranteed to get the overall result you want. The concrete block theory doesn't buy you anything in this respect.
The overall alignments and dimensions were determined by large-scale geometrical calculations based on the math of the golden mean and mapped out with the help of astronomical constellations. They were able to align the Great Pyramids to true North because back then, true North was defined by the line that passed through a particular pair of stars in the dipper constellations. Drawing a line down to the horizon allowed them to stake out the edges of the pyramids that aligned with this line on the horizontal plateau. The sides of the Great Pyramids are the golden mean of 1/2 the base dimension, and the apex is 3/4 as high as the base is wide (. The Great Pyramid complex itself is arranged to reflect the star pattern in Orion's Belt (or whatever is represented to them back then). It's just amazing and still a mystery how they got such huge alignments and dimensions so exactly, and were able to match them with such small units, with so many ways to go wrong. Materials alone can't explain it.
Originally posted by 709
BR's chance in heaven
HAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAH!
Well, considering what kind of people would make it in there, I don't think I want in anyway.
Originally posted by BR
HAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAH!
Well, considering what kind of people would make it in there, I don't think I want in anyway.
I don't care what any you fools think I am taking BR with me to heaven and there are no two ways about it.
There! hahahahaha Don't like that BR? TOUGH!
Fellows
Seriously though, this is what makes the whole theory fascinating & also plausible. You description of Roman technique is apt.
Roman concreted buildings had no edge deformation,nor did they have " gaps ". The wall of the cured block would naturally act as the abutting form wall for the next poured block.
How did they get water up there ? The quantities of water are not that great considering the manpower and size of the blocks in question.
And you raise ( in my mind at least ) a fascinating issue over the hewn block theory..namely the variable consistency of each cut block to bear the same weight as the next layer. We know from disgarded material that limestone in that area is seamed and very likely to vary from one place to another. The multiple layers needed to build a pyramid from such hewn stone would multiply the weakness inherent in the blocks as each succesive layer added more weight to the structure.
The only internally "visible" hewn blocks line the corridors & the King & Queen chambers.And these are granite not limestone. Yet despite the use of this much stronger material, we see that at least one of these granite roof beams is cracked right through. And remember, that is supporting a much lesser weight ( because it is half way up the pyramid ) than those base blocks.
The alignment "level horizon " issue was well understood by the egyptians, who used water as a level indicator.
As regards the Marble ( 709 )..poured marble...firstly, I am not quite sure that evidence points to marble..here we are reliant on the wrtings of Herodotus a Greek traveller relating second hand descriptions some 2000 years after the fact. But even if we accept marble facias..you scoff at poured marble....You should blush with embarrasment.
Most American and european cities are decorated with "terrazzo" ie "poured marble dust" which is highly rendered and easy to polish.
A dam is very near a pyramid in a build point of vue (very large at the bottom, thin at the top), if you looks the way the built for example the hoover dam, you will see that the result was entirely different.
The truth is that the egyptians did not make the pyramid, it's just a tourist crack that some arab invented in order to scrooge tourists. It's unbeleviable to be so naive today
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I don't care what any you fools think I am taking BR with me to heaven and there are no two ways about it.
There! hahahahaha Don't like that BR? TOUGH!
Fellows
Woo hoo we agree on something! No way in hell I'll be caught dead with you in heaven!