The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

In summary: Although I'm not very sure of the exact nature of the chemical processing involved, it would probably involve using a very large furnace and other heavy materials.In summary, the limestone blocks for the pyramids were formed onsite and not dragged by slaves or teleported by aliens.
  • #36
zoobyshoe said:
I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.

In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.
Eerily prophetic zoob. Yes, you were right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
if the stones were cast why is their so much variation in the block sizes.
 
  • #38
ukmicky said:
if the stones were cast why is their so much variation in the block sizes.
Probably due to the multiple forms for the casting.
 
  • #39
Artman said:
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but the Bible says they made bricks. First using straw as an ingredient, then, as a punishment, without straw. That they worked on Pyramids is just another myth from the movies.




Check this out. Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4"


Wow! I love watching videos of regular guys off the street that come up with very clever ways of moving big stone blocks. Thats fantastic!

I saw another very similar thing on TV for raising Obelisks. You dig a pit, and with some ropes and a simple structure above, you let the obelisk slide into the pit and start pulling on the ropes to help tip the structure upright. Once your done you just fill the hole back up. Really ingenious stuff.

This is the kind of stuff I like. So simple, that its not simple at all, but very very clever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Evo said:
Probably due to the multiple forms for the casting.
but even in them days it would have made sense to make a standard sized cast.
 
  • #41
ukmicky said:
but even in them days it would have made sense to make a standard sized cast.
You'd think.
 
  • #42
cyrusabdollahi said:
I love watching videos of regular guys off the street that come up with very clever ways of moving big stone blocks.

:smile: your taste in videos is incredibly specific!

wow that video is amazing. I watched it without sound but that thing where he tips the stone from side to side is freakin' brilliant in a jar.

This is the kind of stuff I like. So simple, that its not simple at all, but very very clever.

I know! it always amazes me... the incredible (or frustrating if you're in the sciences or arts) thing about 99% of all brilliant ideas is that they all have that "ughh! I could've thought of that!" element to them. So simple and elegant that it never occurs to one to look there.
...
take the sliced-bread wheel, for example... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :biggrin:
some day it'll catch on.
 
  • #43
ladies and gent's ,
read this carefully

http://www.cmc-concrete.com/CMC%20Seminars/2007%20ICMA%20Pyramid.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Well, at least we still have Stone Henge to impress us, with the earlier builders' ability to move extremely heavy objects.

[PLAIN]http://www.dailyventure.com/400x300/stonehenge_07.jpg


What about those obelisk? Aren't those evidence of quarrying at least?

[URL]http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/Aswan/AroundAndAbout/UnfinishedObelisk.jpg[/URL]

Would seem stupid to mold something in a rock quarry, miles away from it's intended destination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
FrancisZ said:
Well, at least we still have Stone Henge to impress us, with the earlier builders' ability to move extremely heavy objects.

[PLAIN]http://www.dailyventure.com/400x300/stonehenge_07.jpg


What about those obelisk? Aren't those evidence of quarrying at least?

[URL]http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/Aswan/AroundAndAbout/UnfinishedObelisk.jpg[/URL]

Would seem stupid to mold something in a rock quarry, miles away from it's intended destination.

but many chemists and others of archaeology say the geopolymer is impossible because of we must have great furnaces to burn these stones and no evidence for these furnaces found
what about that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
lunarmansion said:
Slaves labored at the pyramids. Hebrew means "dirty feet" in Egyptian, that is, people have no fixed home and wander looking for work. I do not see why Jews were not among the workers, if not the only workers, who labored at the pyramids.
Hebrew mean 'cross over' in Hebrew. It is not for certain that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, but if they were, it was 1000 years after the construction of the great pyramids at Giza.
 
  • #47
Jimmy Snyder said:
Hebrew mean 'cross over' in Hebrew. It is not for certain that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, but if they were, it was 1000 years after the construction of the great pyramids at Giza.

so you mean the theory of the slaved blocks of pyramids is fake >>>>>
 
  • #48
aeacfm said:
so you mean the theory of the slaved blocks of pyramids is fake >>>>>
No, I left open the possibility that they were built by Egyptian, or some other slaves.
 
  • #49
ok any way this is not my idea
i mean which is stronger :
carved blocks or geopolymer blocks that's what i want to deal .
what do you think ?
 
  • #50
Artman said:
Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered...

Seeing videos like this, I applaud our early human ancestors! Truly amazing people, given what they had to work with.

I think some early humans were far, far more capable than we give them credit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover teens building palm-leaf model gliders and launching them from cliff-sides 100,000 years ago.

What I wouldn't give for a time machine...
 
  • #51
aeacfm said:
but many chemists and others of archaeology say the geopolymer is impossible because of we must have great furnaces to burn these stones and no evidence for these furnaces found
what about that?

Sorry...are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? I mention the unfinished obelisk in Egypt (bottom picture) because I had doubts about the Egyptians using casting techniques strictly. It would seem, as in the case of the unfinished obelisk of Aswan, that they at least quarried granite blocks.
 
  • #52
seems like if you were going to make casts, you might as well also make interlocking shapes to increase structural stability.

also, where would you get all the lumber to burn to make quicklime?
 
  • #53
I had no clue about this until this thread, thanks Evo!

Oh, and for people talking about Jewish slaves in Egypt, the historical record is clear (wrong time period), but also keep in mind that the Passover story is a parable; it doesn't need to be taken literally. Unlike some religions (not naming names *cough really was a Noah's ark *cough*) fundamentalist Judaism still acknowledges that the Pentateuch was at best a divinely inspired construction of humans. AFAIK, only Islam claims that its scripture is the unaltered and literal word of god... and maybe Mormonism... I don't know.
 
  • #54
Proton Soup said:
seems like if you were going to make casts, you might as well also make interlocking shapes to increase structural stability.

also, where would you get all the lumber to burn to make quicklime?
It's granular limestone aggregate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x/abstract
 
  • #55
Evo said:
It's granular limestone aggregate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x/abstract

i would like to see them duplicate it, but it seems as if they are still not clear on that.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top