The Building of the Pyramids

I think the answer to this challenge is obvious enough.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

skin walker
The electrons are traveling as particles with mass, which is why the cathode rays of electrons travel in a straight line, they're not being scattered by bumping into the particles of gas. Placing a magnet near the tube has predicted effects with the electron stream, such as attracting the stream or repelling it. To see the effect that experiments had on the cathod ray, a little gas was left to remain in the tube (so it wouldn't be a complete vacuum) that would be excited by the electron stream.
And you still maintain that you have a legitimate degree in physics?

A magnetic field will not attract or repel electrons; it causes them to curve at right angles to the field.
I was responding to the description of electricity that phlogisistician made. He said it travelled in wire like waves in a medium. I was pointing out that the medium of the metal wire ended at the cathode, and the vacuum could not be considered that kind of medium; the metal is electrons suspended and drifting through atom lattices - the vacuum is different from that. Then quantum quack replied to that with something that was irrelevant. He said that since radio waves can flow through a vacuum I should reconsider. Radio waves is electromagnetic radiation, (like light) and light does not bend in a magnetic field like electrons are supposed to do. So I told him the flow in the vacuum, that is called the cathode ray cannot be any form of electromagnetic radiation from radio to gamma. It is either electrons, charged particles which do bend in a mag field, or Leedskalnin's magnetic units, moving with a right hand twist in opposite directions, which should also bend in a magnetic field, because of that twist.

Your response to my post is similar to phlogistician's, so I will anwser you the same way: - It can't be electrons because the electron drift velocity in metal is so slow (about the speed of heat conduction or a snail crawling), that the wire could not deliver enough electrons fast enough to the cathode to support the cathode ray, moving at close to the speed of light. - so I will repost the reason for this.

The part you don't understand, from the comparison with water flowing, the total volume (of whatever is flowing) must stay the same. A certain amount of volume per second must pass every point in the flow. (The same volume per second of water, moving slower in the wider hose, is the same volume per second of water coming out of the smaller nozzle hose, at a faster speed. The volume per second in a flow must be constant all along the flow.) The same is true for the electrons flowing in a wire to a cathode. The volume (or number of electrons) per second of electrons flowing in the wire must match the volume per second of what is coming off of the cathode.
If electrons are only flowing in the wire, at the speed of heat conduction, about as fast as a snail crawls, the wire cannot deliver enough volume per second of electrons to support the much faster cathode ray flow.
How could the small number of electrons per second (from a flow as fast as a snail crawling) provide enough electrons to make a cathode ray beam moving near the speed of light? And the beam when it is illuminated is wider than the wire. It would take more electrons than that slow flow rate could deliver. So, the ray can't be made of electrons. That is what I am trying to say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah.. whatever. They are deflected depending on the polarity of the magnetic field. Call it what you will.

Of course not. And I'm not getting that they disagree with that. They seem only to be saying that the electrons from the conducted current in the wire are now traveling at c in the vacuum/near vacuum of the cathode ray tube (which, by rights should be called a "plasma tube").

You keep going on about:

I'm not a physics major. I didn't even take physics. I did, however, take and pay attention in my chemistry classes when the lectures were given on cathode rays/electrons (the same thing). As someone who alleges to have a degree in physics, I really can't believe you don't see what you are saying. Electron drift is slow. But the velocity of the electrons (depending on what atom they are orbiting) is around c/3. They're just bumping into each other. A wire is a conduction of electrons, not a ray!

If you were to have a pipe of a diameter just large enough to accept a ping pon ball, long enough to reach the end of a city block, then filled it with ping pong balls from end to end, placing another ping pong ball in the pipe would cause the last ball to pop out almost instantly. This is what electrons are doing and this is what electron drift is, if I understand it. Perhaps phlog and mercurio will correct me if I'm wrong.

Once the electrons are excited enough to cross the cathode to the anode, they do it at much faster speed than the conduction in the wire. I'm sure this will depend upon the resistance they receive in the tube (neon/flourescent lights have inert gases like neon or xenon).

But why don't you tie all this back to the building of the Pyramids, since it is the thread title? I'd like to discuss the topic, being an anthropology/archaeology major.

Obviously there are more than enough electrons in the wire and being added by the generation of current (from a battery or generator) than required by the particular plasma tube. But perhaps thats why my television draws more current than my FM radio.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'abuse' there's a bit of a dramatic term. Have I used foul language? No. Have I stayed on topic? Yes.

I've corrected some physics, asked some questions, and doubted this guys supposed qualifications. That's not abuse, and to suggest so is absurd.

I've called you a retard, but that was merely in retaliation to you initial ad hom, so don't dish it out if you can't take it!

I can't wait for your reply, and can't figure out why you need Porfiry to give you a green light, but that could just be more drama on your part. I think perhaps you're just stalling, because you do't agree with this guy, but just don't want to admit that, and are drawing the debate?

 

skin walker, and phlogistician
http://www.chem.uiuc.edu/clcwebsite/cathode.html
Picture of cathode ray: Note that the width of the cathode ray as it leaves the cathode seems to be just a little bit less than the wire, with the insulation on it. So the cathode ray itself, before it starts to spread out, is about the same width as the wire.
Considering the physics of flow: The same volume per second of flowing material must pass every point in the flow. The cathode must pass the same volume per second of material to the cathode ray, that it receives from the wire. [It can't be a percentage of the flow because this would cause the flow to back up.]
If the same flow rate were to go through a thinner tube, it would speed up, and if it would go through a thicker tube it would slow down, to maintain the same volume per second in the flow.
It looks like, the width of the cathode ray, coming off the cathode is about as wide as the wire would be, without the insulation on it. So, whatever is flowing in that wire is moving through the wire at about the same speed that it is moving in the cathode ray. So, it can't be electrons that are really flowing in the cathode ray. The speed of the electrons in the wire is only about 8.4 cm per hour (more or less). [That speed is calculated for a light bulb; there would only be a slight difference with the cathode ray circuit. The electron velocity would still be very slow for the cathode circuit.]
At that website it calculates the electron speed for direct current.
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/speed.html
8.4 cm per hour, drift velocity, for the light bulb mentioned below.
Bulb power: about 100 watts, about 100V at 1A
Value for electric current: I = 1 ampere
Wire diameter: D = 2/10 cm, radius R=.1cm
Mobile electrons per cc (for copper, if 1 per atom): Q = 8.5 x 10^+22
Charge per electron: e = 1.6 x 10^-19
Because of the physics of flow, you must consider that it is not really electrons that is flowing in the cathode ray, though science likes to call it that.

The contradictory ideas about what electricity really is
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html

speed of electricity
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/speed.html
The quick answer
Inside the wires, the "something" moves very, very slowly, almost as slowly as the minute hand on a clock. Electric current is like a flow of syrup. Even maple syrup moves too fast, so that's not a good analogy. Electric current flows as slowly as a river of warm putty. And in AC circuits, it doesn't move forward at all, instead it sits in one place and vibrates. Energy can flow fast in an electric circuit because metals are already filled with this "putty." If you push on one end of a column of putty, the far end moves almost instantly. Energy flows fast, yet an electric current is a very slow flow.


The complicated answer
Within all metals there is a substance which can move. This stuff has several different names: the Sea of Charge, or the Electron Sea, or the Electron Gas, or "charge." We often call it "electricity." Calling it "electricity" can be misleading because charge is not energy, yet many people think that electrical energy is the "electricity." It can be misleading because the Sea of Charge exists within in all metal objects, all the time, even when the metal has not been made into a wire and is not part of an electric device. If the Electron Sea is "electricity," then we must say that all metals are full of electricity. Better to call it by the name "charge-sea," and avoid the misleading word "electricity".

They seem to call it electrons, even though they know it is not electrons, flowing in the cathode ray. [Either that, are you have two different definitions of electrons, like you have different definitions for electricity. Maybe what they mean by electrons in the wire is different from what they mean by electrons in the cathode ray.]
Looking at the contradictory ideas for what electricity really is at those websites, you can see that science is still confused about it.
Leedskalnin, did very well documented and reproduceable experiments, with electricity and magnets to develope his theories about electricity. It is just like what you would find in any good science book. You can also see how he interpreted the results if you think about it. You can purchase his books at coralcastle.com. At least you could buy them in 1999; I don't know about now.
Leedskalnin's experiments defined electricity as north and south pole magnetic units flowing in opposite directions, and each flow having a right hand twist.

 

No, you're an abusive little pr*ck allright, and way before you called me a retard.

That Xev person should be stripped of mod rights.

The forum should ban people who use loads of accounts.

Porfiry should read his mail, and clean up his act in more ways than one.

And I have much better things to do than correct your English, physics, or manners. Bit too late in all cases, I fear.

Well, nothing reincarnation won't cure.
:m:

 

Here's two decent links explaining the current understanding about electrons for a bit of background, and to see what kinds of movement electrons can make, and how fast:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/5/physics/copper/copelech2pg3.html

as to the German engineer and his wheels, there is very little to be found on the Net, so I'll draw up a sketch of how his wheels worked. Pretty cool, actually. Smart engineering.

 

I've actually seen that somewhere before, but it apparently doesn't compare to current evidence from the archaeological and epigraphical record recovered from the region. At this site, you'll notice a black and white reproduction of a papyrus that depicts a pharaoh being pulled while seated on a stone block on a sledge... all pulled by 168 men and one more lubricating the sledge-to-ground contact with a vessel of oil.

These are the kinds of drawings and depictions that the egyptians left us... none of wheels. Indeed, this is true for the monumental architectures in the Maya Lowlands/Olmec Heartland in Mesoamerica. Mesoamericans did not know of the wheel prior to 1500 CE.

I found that site looking while looking for that particular image. I have it in a textbook and is even in color, but my scanner's glass is broken. The version in my book is not the same papyrus, but only slightly different: the torn region of the pharaoh's head is intact, a few more heiroglyphs in the right-hand registers, etc.

An interesting thing about that website, however, is that they reminded me of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse moving... I had forgotten about it.

 

No, I'm just uncompromising. I don't apologise for correcting people, especially flakes who make claims without any evidence, or grasp of the subject.

What has Xev got to do with this thread?

What has that got to do with this thread?

You have a problem with Porfiry now? This site not being run the way _you_ want it to be? Well, set up your own forum if you want things 'just so'. I think you'll be disappointed though, as people aren't all terribly tolerant of net ignorami and their theories, and aren't likely to always respond in a liberal manner.

Well, you had a go, but contradicted yourself. I was going to let it lie, it being a nit pick, but since you bring it up again, here we go. You corrected me for using the accepted contraction for 'ad hominem' (ad hom), but then later used the contraction 'typo' (for 'typographical error') yourself. You pointed out that I make typos too. I made one that you pointed out (magnetic/magentic) which is a true typo, a transposition of letters, or an accidental keyboard hit of an adjacent letter. You however, called your spelling mistake a typo. (councilling/counselling).

It's not my physics that needs correcting on this thread. You have been evasive and ambiguous over your agreement with ghosts' hypothesis, because you are in an untenable position. You now seem to be flouncing as if all this were beneath you, another sign that you can't support any of his arguments.

So I don't live up to your standards. I live up to mine, and that is to debate fairly, accurately, and not mince my words.

Do you believe in reincarnation, or was that a disposable comment?

 

Well on the original question of how the pyramids were built i will give you the true answer. They were built with whips.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mercurio,
If you think that certain things are being done wrong on this site, then by all means start your own one elsewhere with your enstated ruleset.

Porfiry pretty much allows the site to exist as it's own animal/entity, in the sense that what ever becomes of it is up to the audience that uses it, only on occasion does it actually have to rain down fire and brimstone on people that have either abused his generousity or attempted to namecall.

As for Xev and the other moderators of this forum, they put in their own time and effort to try and keep this place in some form of order, rather than allowing anarchists to "drill holes" in the preverbial sciforums boat hull. If it was for them then this site might cease to be (which might have been on some peoples agenda)

You have to note that this forum isn't about learning how to hate, or causing fights, it's suppose to be about the envisionment of people being able to collect thoughts together and work out the basic fundemental truths of our lives and the universe.
As soon as you start to veer away from that understanding then you should be asking the question of "why do you post here?".

I'm not going to go into any more details on that, and I expect this thread to stay on topic from this point on, otherwise I will have to start Chopping content out which causes people to complain because of how strongly people feel about being edited.

 

Actually, current thinking is more along the lines of carrots than whips.

 

pyramids were built by aliens, specifically & better known as predators, most everyone knows that.

i post here cause it's the only website my cpe will browse too, plus there's a gun to my head.

 

I just got this film.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Information

For four thousand years men have marvelled at the Great Pyramid of Giza and asked two questions: how was it built and why? To answer those questions we will travel back in time. By combining the latest archaeological research with the most up-to-date visual technology we can for the first time see the Pyramid through the eyes of the men who built it.

Not quite documentary, not quite drama, this reenactment of a fictional conscript's life building the Great Pyramid of Giza is best described as docudrama. Omar Sharif voices the thoughts of the aged Nakht remembering the moment Egyptian soldiers drafted him into the king's service. The 57-minute film re-creates the boat trip up the Nile and his ascent through the ranks, from delivering water to helping haul 2.5-ton blocks up ramps for the king's tomb. Interspersed are narrator Michael Pennington's historical assertions, along with contrasting footage of what the pyramid looks like today.

You can get it here: http://www.mvgroup.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3526

 

Slotty
Well on the original question of how the pyramids were built i will give you the true answer. They were built with whips.

In Tiauanacho, Bolivia, there is a stone structure on top of a plateau using a 400 ton stone. The air is so thin that a slave force couldn't do intensive labor up there and crops could not be grown to feed them up there. What primitive tool, no matter how many slaves and whips you have, could even move a 400 ton stone. - think about it - 400 tons.
There is also a stone structure on top of a plateau and the stone quarry is at ground level; it might be this site in Tiauanacho. There is only a step footpath to get up there and no way slaves could have moved the heavy stones up to plateau level.
There was an ancient building method of moving and setting large heavy stones that we cannot reproduce today. Leedskalnin may have re discovered this method, like he said.

 

I think your ignorance must be a result of a combination of a lack of education as well as an ethnocentric perspective. So quickly are you to apply the Our Ancestors, The Dummies hypothesis to the abilities of ancient cultures. Moreover, the assumption that the only way monumental architecture could possiblly be constructed is if a "slave force" conducted the labor is grossly incorrect. The fact of the matter is that there is significant evidence to suggest that just the opposite was true: the labor was voluntary and eager to construct.

As we are on the subject, your assumption that the Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku sites in the Andean Mountains are too high for people to work and live is also uninformed. It has been well documented that the Andean peoples have genetic or developmental adaptations to high altitude. Highland children raised at high altitudes develop larger chest sizes compared to lowland children. Their aerobic capacities increase, giving them the ability to consume more more O₂ per unit of body weight per min.

I'd suggest getting a refund for your degree... you got ripped off.

 

Amen to that, as they say. I'll be checking my 'fundementel' truths elsewhere, tho. Happy chopping.

 

Don't let the cyber-door hit ya!

 

The stone structures at Tiwanaku, Bolivia (the town, itself, is generally spelled "Tihuanaco") are built of stones that have sockets for construction clamps of a variety of shapes and sizes, and complicated cutouts that are typically referred to by archaeologists who examine the site as "hoisting clamps." They quite obviously employed hoists, clamps, pulleys, ropes, levers, etc.

Moreover, while the altitude is high, the site itself is not situated in any way that would prevent teams of workers from erecting monumental architecture as you suggest. See the photos below:

The first is the gateway of the sun you refer to. A local is participating in a contemporary ceremony at the site.
The second is a view of the gateway from inside the pyramid/temple.
The third is an aerial view of the entire site. It looks like it would be as simple for Andeans of 500 to 950 CE (AD to those of the Christian cult) to move megaliths as it would for the Greeks of the 2 nd millennium BCE or Mesopotamians, or Anatolians, or Egyptians, or even the Europeans of the same era.

In short, your woo-woo hypothesis is bunk.

<img src="http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/5.jpeg">

<img src="http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/16.jpeg">

<img src="http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/4.jpeg">


Experimental archaeology at the region has demonstrated that the Andean people of Tiwanaku had the ability to move megaliths from their quarries to very close to the site by use of reed boats and then dragging them. The source of the green andesite was "on the Copacabana peninsula, across Lake Titicaca. One theory is that these giant andesite stones (the largest weighing 40 tons) were transported some 90 kilometers across Lake Titicaca on reed boats, then laboriously dragged another 10 kilometers to the city."

Archaeologists from the University of Pennsylvania, led by Paul Harmon and Alexei Vranich, actually did this in 2002.