Pyramids poured not pushed.

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
ahh... Nubian
but not in Giza pyramids

Dude, really, read the fucking last sentence. Giza pyramids too... No other use was suggested for the pyramids but tombs... But anyhow, this is kind of off topic...

yet as I said before there NO hieroglyphics in the Giza pyramids and more importantly NO cartouches either , which is very , very significant

it is off topic but since we went there it is important to discuss and understand

[river]

The pyramids were almost certainly built using quarried stone blocks that were transported via sledge & rollers up ramps built up around the unfinished pyramids. This is evident in epigraphical and archaeological remains. There are murals that depict the scenes, texts that speak of them, and unfinished public works and pyramids that incorporated ramps that still exist in Luxor. The image below shows a figure pouring liquid in front of the sledge. This was very likely oil or even just water used to lubricate the surface between the sledge and the ground. The figure seated on the limestone block is either a representation of the actual pharaoh or perhaps the scene represents a carved figure of the pharaoh being put into place. Though I think its probably a figurative representation designed to show that this was the pharaoh's project. Not that every thing he said was entirely factual, but Herodotus tells us: Diodorus Siculus was often accused of borrowing from Herodotus and both have been shown to made some big mistakes in the accuracy of their "historical accounts," but for what it's worth: In this case, it doesn't seem that Siculus "borrowed" from Herodotus since the accounts are a bit varied. But, interestingly enough, Mark Lehner, an archaeologist that specializes in Egyptology, participated in experimental archaeology projects that used the various methods described by Herodotus, Siculus and Davidovits. Indeed, I think Davidovits was a part of the project or at least someone that represented him. The most successful group was the group with the ramp though the group that used levers to position the blocks up a tiered pyramid were also successful but had significantly more problems. The most unsuccessful experimental group was the concrete block group. The pyramids built were significantly scaled down, perhaps as tall as a small house. You can read more about what is really known of pyramid construction in Lehner's The Complete Pyramids (1997, Thames and Hudson: NY). Below are some depictions of what the ramps may have looked like with the spiraling ramp being the one that was tested:

I don't see this picture as anything to do with building the pyramids

[Xotica]

yet as I said before there NO hieroglyphics in the Giza pyramids...

Hieroglyphs were discovered within one of the secret chambers in the pyramid of Khufu. They seem to be an engineering note, denoting the length of the chamber in cubits.

[river]

Hieroglyphs were discovered within one of the secret chambers in the pyramid of Khufu. They seem to be an engineering note, denoting the length of the chamber in cubits.

from what I understand his tomb was found outside the three main pyramids

the Gizeh Plateau

[Xotica]

from what I understand his tomb was found outside the three main pyramids

the Gizeh Plateau

Perhaps a visual will help...

[river]

Perhaps a visual will help...

Kufu carouche was only found after Richard Howard Vyse forged Kufu's cartouche

[river]

Futher;

an inscription on a stela , which is in the Cairo Museum , the Great Pyramid was already standing when Khufu arrived . It belonged to the Goddess Isis , not to Khufu

[Xotica]

Futher;

an inscription on a stela , which is in the Cairo Museum , the Great Pyramid was already standing when Khufu arrived . It belonged to the Goddess Isis , not to Khufu

I suggest that you Google - Pyramid of Khufu

[river]

I suggest that you Google - Pyramid of Khufu

why ?

I've read about it

[river]

out of curiosity I checked google for Kufu

http://guardians.net/hawass/khufu.htm

[river]

and another site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu

[river]

notice that none of the sites mention the stela that states that the pyramids were there before Kufu , none

[Aqueous Id]

But wouldn't it have been just as much labor or more to haul the slurry up to the top of the pyramid? Instead of transporting a stone up, now we have the problem of how they hauled artificially made stones. How does this theory simplify anything?

I notice the links to the instigators didn't properly encode.

Here's the first guy who tested samples:

http://forum.terrana-ecovillage.ro/b...s of Egypt.pdf

Here's the more recent story that led to this thread 6 years ago:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/1...amids_arc.html

I suppose the rationale for taking samples in the first place was to see if the material might be cement. But more than likely they took samples for the reason you mention, to find some other explanation than hauling them up the steps.

Why pour cement in blocks at all? I suppose without aggregate and rebar they don't have a very strong material. This might be an alternative to expansion joints. But it seems like it would have been so much simpler to pour slabs.

The original author says the blocks were poured in place. This seems odd, since there aren't gaps between them to account for forms. "Not a hair could pass between them" it was written.

All of this - quarrying and crushing stone, transporting it, drawing water, mixing it, sending it up the steps via bucket brigade, just to overcome the difficulty of using levers and wheels, etc., doesn't even make sense. The author already admits that some of the blocks are definitely dragged from the quarry whole. So they had the machines anyway.

There are two motivations I can think of for pouring blocks. One is that they dry faster than a slab. The author says he made one in 10 days. So they could pour them with gaps - like battlements - let them dry and return in 10 days and fill in between, although the second set wouldn't have as much air to dry. Maybe they solved that by pouring the center block first then spiraling around it, one revolution every ten days per level.

The second motivation might be to create expansion joints, although it's hard to imagine they couldn't have stumbled on to this by pouring slabs and experimenting. Unless, of course, that's how they came up with the standard block size.

Finally, it's hard to believe they didn't use this unslaked cement to build their infrastructure. It would be much softer than concrete but it would at least seem to be feasible for roads and sidewalks which could be repaired as they wore down, and foundations, which wouldn't necessarily undergo much load or wear and tear. It just seems like there would be ruins of cities and fortresses left behind.

[Xotica]

notice that none of the sites mention the stela that states that the pyramids were there before Kufu , none

Somehow, the obvious escapes you.

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
notice that none of the sites mention the stela that states that the pyramids were there before Kufu , none

Somehow, the obvious escapes you.

such as......

[Epictetus]

I've thought of another objection to the 'poured pyramid' hypothesis. As everyone who has ever pored concrete, or seen it poured, or wandered by afterwards will have observed, there are little splashes of concrete on the ground around the work site. Granted it's been ages since the last pyramid was allegedly poured, but wouldn't there be one little plash somewhere in or around all that massive massiveness and mass that are the pyramids?

[Syzygys]

You did hear that they were made a few thousands years ago, right?

[Epictetus]

You did hear that they were made a few thousands years ago, right?

Tut tut. Another case of not really having read the post alluded to.

Granted it's been ages since the last pyramid was allegedly poured, but wouldn't there be one little plash somewhere in or around all that massive massiveness and mass that are the pyramids?

BTW, 'splatter' may have been a better word than 'splash/plash'. I didn't think of it yesterday.

My point is 'liquid construction' leaves telltale liquid leavings, splatters. splashes, dribbles. Given the scale of the pyramids, can all such sign have been obliterated, even after all this time?

Another point: they say the two inescapable rules of cement are that it is grey and it will crack. Are many of the pyramids' blocks cracked? And if not, and it is indeed poured concrete, was their recipe for concrete/cement superior to ours in modern times? I am not saying it could not be, but it would be quite an accomplishment - a regular lost secret of the Egyptians even.

[R1D2]

I don't know but here is a thought. After reading most all of this. Maybe the "concrete" was to fix things. By the real builders. If not Epictetus, is right there would've been "splashes". Maybe all the sand wore them away. But maybe the blocks were poured because they are lighter. Then shaped by hand. There for there is no form markings. An possibly they didn't use wood to make the form. They could have used rocks or lined a hole, with something. The water is no issue. Really the water was need by people. People lived where they worked. Wells, rain water, transported water. But here is something.
We will never truly know any thing for certain. How they truly did anything. Even with the hyrogliphs.
But way off target. Like Egyptians how the heck did Mayans do it?
An one more thing many mummy's were lost because they were used as "logs" in steam engines. An plain burned.

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Two major related fallacies prevent the unlocking of the pyramids mystery.
1. We are the most intelligent humans to date.
2. What we comprehend and measure of matter is all there is to it.

Some of the methods of deduction by a few of you, are suitable to investigate and find out the answer.

Here are some clues;
The structure of some stones has been 'mixed' or aligned to a specific consistancy.
The stones are set very close, with no spaces, despite any irregularities.
The quarries show cut marks.
Many stones will have signs of a single (or less common multiple) indentation originally about 5 to 8 inches in diameter, and usually an inch deep, rarely up to 10 inches deep (the holes can penetrate the stone entirely with the same diameter or the stone can have little or no marking).
Many stones will have one side which is slightly more irregular or rougher than the other side.
Stones in other ruins worldwide show similar markings and signs.
Use your observation skills.

Clues in the negative;
No cementing, no pouring, no pushing, no loading, no ropes, no tackles, no ramps, no pulleys, no levers, no rollers, no wheels, no aliens, no canoes, no barges, no donkeys, no camels, no slaves whatsoever, no flintstones, no tooth picks, no thousands of years in building, no burials - originally, not made for tourists, not old grain or treasure stores - originally, no foretelling of the future, no magnets, no axes, no hammers, no mud slidding, no electro magnetism, no heat, no ice or snow, no sand, no magic, no muscles, no superman, no machinery, no natural disaster, no river usage, no Divine assistance, no occult, no atomic explosions, any more guesses?