Pyramids poured not pushed.

Discussion in 'History' started by TimeTraveler, Dec 2, 2006.

  1. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    I think this is a good example of your opinion. Unfortunately you are not saying much about how the pyramids may have been built, which leaves you with only two options to ignore what I said or mock me. Which is easier for you?

    It will be difficult to break the habit.

    By the way, if you want more discussions about it, go to the thread on Questions on Ice.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    We've known how they were built for quite some time now - and it's been readily demonstrated several times. The only people raising this old, tired subject are those trying to create sensationlism among the under-educated portion of the population OR cranks like you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    If you really believe what circulated text books propose, I think you are simple by admission.

    However, I just think you have not come across enough info to take another view, you're not stupid.

    I hope that the few bits I have given will verify what you will find in the future.

    I am sorry that I just threw things out there without evidence, but the evidence cannot be found in scientific publications. My views on matter are either too far ahead or insane, but unsupported either way - by the majority. We know how and why the pyramids were built.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    "Another view?" By that do mean the kind of nonsense you've been spreading all throughout these forums?

    And I'm not talking about just "textbook" (that's all ONE word, by the way, not two) information - I'm talking about documentaries that were filmed showing EXACTLY how the participants performed the work. I've no idea where you live (and certainly don't care) but probably a third of the people in the U.S. have seen those films.

    There's nothing inherently wrong with presenting alternative theories IF you have supporting evidence - but you have NOTHING. Not one single thing to support all the nonsense you've been slinging all around this site. Absolutely NOTHING!
     
  8. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    Sorry, but levers and ropes, camels and flintstones, directors and actors? I think I mentioned them all before somewhere.

    No.

    My supporting evidence? It will have to be your reasoning or nothing. The days of loyalty to men with bad haircuts and wearing their pants too high are over.

    People are not interested in their theories, because they instinctively know that they are false.

    When somebody has done their own research, then that is the evidence for whatever they say. You have the choice to think about it and work it out or not. Now over to Question on Ice.
     
  9. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    "Sir, I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

    Nonexistent.
    The simple machines used to build ancient structures are starting to look pretty good next to claims of mystical devices that don't exist and no evidence presented.
    No, it only means they did research of some kind. I can research swamp fairies until I'm blue in the face, but having done the research does not prove that swamp fairies are real.
    As do you. The options are:
    -Strong compelling well supported evidence
    -Speculative, unsubstantiated and unsupported claims that contradict established and well understood physics.

    No, on second thought- I don't really see a choice, there.
     
  10. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    The popular theories about Pyramid building techniques are just guesses.

    What I don't want to hear is that a whole lot of guesses are better than one or two.

    Just because something is printed does not make it true.
     
  11. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Here you go with the "printed" bit again. I clearly explained to you that there are FILMS available. And those films were NOT made by actors but professionals. You hold on to your nonsense as long as you wish - but it's going nowhere.

    And that's not all: You've been recognized here as nothing but a CRANK in several threads. Why don't you just go back and play with your childish toys and leave the intelligent adults alone?
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    These statements are mostly accurate. And also... irrelevant.

    The "guesses" are based on solid evidence, observation, existing materials, documentation, historical documentation, tests and experiments on the materials and successful re-enactments of techniques. All those factors as evidence are better than your one or two unsubstantiated, unsupported claims. Ancient anti-gravity technology from spinning humming discs of silicon.

    Yes, one cannot believe everything that's printed. Starting with your posts.
     
  13. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    My posts included.

    That's a good point because you have to arm yourself with knowledge, otherwise there are plenty of people who will do it for you.

    In order to get the stuff I put forward you have to have all of it, and that cannot be done at any time, because it involves a review of nearly all the aspects of nature/science. So if I say something here -it has no back up, if I say something elsewhere - again it has no back up. If I put forward all the fundamentals and it is dismissed as rubbish. So I don't have a platform from which to start, because the platform I use is considered myth.

    Take for example the stars.

    I see them as creations of God which do not die, but have cycles of activity, which vary from one star to the next. Science looks at the same thing and declares stars to be dying and in the throws of death.
    So there is a basic conflict of ideas, and in the face of science my views will never be verified.

    Science will not accept or find out ancient technology, because it is based on the acknowledgement of a creator or plural thereof, and that matter is caused by forces that cannot be detected by materials. It is a philosophical approach, you might say, which involves a mindset that can see the evidence of those forces in nature.

    I understand matter to be changeable by the background forces, and I know how and why it can. But I cannot explain the background forces because they are a creation that needs an understanding of principles foreign to science and only found in the knowledge of the character of the Creator.

    Having said that, means I am headed for the religious crackpot section, by a royal moderator.
     
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Very well. I find this agreeable.

    I agree with this statement. But I will point out that the perceptions of what counts as knowledge and what doesn't is a tad more complex.

    And the knowledge that people have armed themselves with informs them of the difference between reality and fantasy-or myth...
    Let me explain this one to you:
    No one can talk about Relativity on these forums and honestly expect to educate a person to the point where they really understand Special and General Relativity.
    For that, they need guidance and years of education. It's very similar to what you just said, right? I mean, if they say, "Speed of Light is a constant" or "everything is relative" then these statements are almost put forth with faith- in order to back them up, one must explain the fundamentals of Relativity and so on.
    This the case, what's the difference between your dilemma and say, Prometheus? (Sorry Prometheus, to use you thus; but you're a good example to use and I'm sure you'll get over it in time.)
    The difference is that the poster explaining a concept on Relativity Still Takes the time to TRY to back up his statements. If they are met with doubt, he provides more support. He has a large supply of supporting documentation he can dig into. And as the discussion progresses, he keeps putting the support in all its forms. After a while, the person who could only truly understand it with a formal education has learned a Great Deal, overcome many misconceptions, has far more supportive arguments to read and learn from and is Better Off For it. He may not have a degree from it but he learned a lot, feels better and got a heck of a lot more than "nothing."
    You provide "nothing" while falling back on the same excuse Any One Of Us could fall back on but do not.

    Kremmerer; the onus is on YOU to support your statements. Worry less about how uneducated we are and TRY.

    Semantics. I would say that stars are never born and never die. I would say that stars form, collapse into neutron stars or even black holes, go nova etc- But I would not use the LaySpeak of "born" and "die." This is a choice on my part, not necessarily others who speak in a manner they take for granted and are accustomed to. A scientist saying, "This star is dying" does not believe the star is a living thing: he is merely using Expressive English.
    As to Divine Creation: I disbelieve in such a thing, but you choose to believe in that which cannot be proven or disproved and that is perfectly fine.
    Just always remember- God is not Science. If you choose to talk science, try to keep beliefs of pure faith to yourself as a personal thing and none of our concern.

    There are two problems with this statement:
    1.) The scientific Method does not care if there is a creator or not.
    It merely acts as a method to determine if there is Evidence of Phenomena. It has no conscious role. Now, conscious humans use the method and this is the clincher- we are fallible. Just as you say, a scientist can be closed minded. Biased. Predisposed. Even- irrational. But the METHOD is sound even when the scientist is unsound. This is why the scientific method works- we conceived it to overcome our own foolishness.
    2.) Forces that cannot be measured or detected are more than a matter of philosophy, they are a matter of faith. Faith fails the method mentioned above. You may find this disheartening because you believe in something which cannot be measured or 'proven.'
    Then I ask: What does silicon have to do with Dropa Discs? This is a physical and quantifiable measurable quality. Should you not have fear for that question as it can provide support for your FAITH? What about the harmonics? This MUST be repeatable for that technology to have worked in ancient times as you claim- therefor, it MUST have properties that can be duplicated, measured. Again, this can only provide support for your claims and meet the expectations of the Scientific Method.
    So your statement above contradicts your belief.

    Or at least the religious section.
    And again- that is fine. There's nothing wrong with having some faith or belief in things.

    But you're clearly well aware that "faith" won't help you support scientific claims. Instead of worrying about the Royal Mods, perhaps you should remember the distinction you admit to knowing and discuss your beliefs in the appropriate places the first time around instead of injecting them into threads where people were interested in discussing a Possibly scientifically viable method for Amazing Ancient Works.
     
  15. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    649
    You are quite right, and you are well grounded - a thorough approach in your thinking.

    I must admit, and I prefer and know it is easier, to tell people the possibilities and principles and let them work out a whole lot of other stuff with that.

    I'll need to bring some material to the table in the Question on Ice thread.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    How'd you get a link in on your first post?
    Interesting read, thanks for contributing.
     
  17. realdanielbyrne Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    No paintings or depictions of ramps


    There are in fact NO known pictures or reliefs of Egyptians using ramps or for that matter using anything to construct the pyramids. Their construction methods are hidden by the fog of time. There is a lot of evidence to however support the theory of poured blocks, and very little evidence to support the ramp theory.
     
  18. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Realdanielbyrne,

    This is your first post? No spam? Sock Puppet?

    There is plenty of evidence pointing to a blocks being quarried, cut and moved via a likely internal ramp (that there is also evidence of). The quarries show blocks those exact size being cut out. Are you suggesting they cut them out and then melted or dissolved them somehow? There are saw marks visible on many blocks.

    If the Egyptians had the technology to pour rock then why even bother with pouring blocks? Why not just fill a mold the way we pour concrete and have a seamless pyramid?
     
  19. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Let me repost an image from the first page:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There is actually zero evidence that the pyramids were constructed of "poured" blocks (though there is one pyramid that appears to have been constructed rather shoddily after the classic period when times were probably hard, financially. In this construction, hollow spaces filled with sand seems to have been attempted with limited success). There are plenty of data that point to quarried stones. Images like the stone above being transported on a sled as well as ... well... quarries. That's right. The quarries are still there and, in some cases, partially quarried blocks are present.

    Among the data are also that yielded by experimental archaeology, in which various construction and quarrying methods were used. In each, Occam's razor leaves us with quarried stones and ramps and the one experiment in "pouring" concrete and cement yielded results that were easily distinguished from actual limestone.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there are problems with the ramp theory.
    there are 2 basic ways a ramp can be used.
    1. straight ramp.
    this has the problem of being too long to accommodate the quarry.
    2. spiraled ramp.
    this has the problem of interfering with the corners of the pyramid.
     
  21. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Those are definitely problems with pyramid building if ramps are assumed to be used. Clearly they were overcome (if ramps were used), and I suspect if we were to be able to observe the process we'd see a combination of methods, probably including the use of a shaduf (essentially a lever/crane).

    Whatever method used, the Egyptians did it. Experimental archaeology has revealed some methods in much smaller scale that are practical and possible. The methods used to build the pyramids are less important mysteries than how the non-elite members of society lived in their day-to-day lives. The latter mystery tells us more about ourselves as humans and has more power to explain that which drives a human society to leave behind a legacy that will be admired and wondered about for millennia.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    probably the way it happened.
    they somehow muscled one block into such a position that through a system of levers and cranes were able to easily move the rest.

    you know, nevermind.
    egypt weeps.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What evidence is there of cranes used ? And/or levers ?
     

Share This Page