studiot

I can't think of any other technique they could have used, which is why I offered this as an explanation for the trough of water apparantly surrounding the pyramid. Further they would have had to carry this trough under the first (bottom) coursing to lay the base correctly. I also observed that there is no evidence they had the more sophisticated level equipment used by the Roman Agrimensores. the Romans also invented a device for setting right angles, called a groma, which I don't see evidence of, so I wonder how they did this.

I know not cubits but when I was at school there were 5280 feet in a mile so your figure of 10,600' implies the dimension of a pyramid was 2 miles. Is this correct? 16.65 feet to be precise, but the figure is not proportional as you have it. The deviation or offset of a circular curve from a tangent is [math]offset = \frac{{{L^2}}}{{2R}}[/math] Where L is the distance along the straight line (tangent) and R is the radius of the circle which = 20 925 525 feet for the Earth. Of course a sensible builder will halve this by working from the centre (see the recent thread on centre lines in Engineering) Edit according to the internet the dimensions of the Great Pyramid are 755' side and 1069 feet diagonal, Over these distances the Earth's curvature works out at side 0.16" or 4mm diagonal 0.33" or 8.3 mm So my original guess was pretty close.

Please don't. Yes a level (or horizontal) line is curved. I would need the long or diagonal (horizontal) dimension of a pyramid is to calculate the effect of the curvature of the Earth, but I suspect it is of the order of 10mm deviation from a straight line I mentioned a modern day story earlier in this thread about a very serious error due to failure to take this into account.

So my comments about foundations have some foundation basis in reality. (I was tempted to make a pun here ) Thank you for the information. But my comment on levelling also referred to the survey techniques necessary to achieve a line, horizontal over a distance the size of a pyramid.

Thank you for all this information to digest. I am still interested in the engineering mechanics of things, and you have not answered my question about impulsive forces, or water levelling. Here is a question from a modern textbook on fluid mechanics, that might be of interest. It is about hauling 'buckets' of water up inclined planes.

This is all interesting information and I will think about it before replying. Meanwhile did you understadn what I meant about impulsive forces? , you didn't mention it. And what did you make of my comment on levelling? Do you understand the significance of correct alignment and fit and horizontality for the structural integrity and longevity of the building?

I take this as an agreement with my post to which is was a response, so when are we going to get on with it?

Using writings and pictures from that time as 'evidence' is fraught with difficulty. I understand there were many pictures of men and animals with wings and men with animal heads. But that does not mean I condemn them as unenlightened superstitious savages. Just that I am cautious about attempting to interpret their relics. Now a thought to me occurs in relation to the water trough around and perhaps under the pyramids. You have repeatedly mentioned how horizontal the coursing is, and I have observed how stable the structure has been over the last 5000 years or so. So how did they achieve horizontal? I know that the Romans used (and chronicled) water levels and were able to build their aqueducts to a sophistication unavailable to the Egyptians. Well perhaps the water troughing was a primitve precursor of the Roman water level, to enable the horizontal to be established over such a large area. The pyramid site area is substantial after all. In a way they did better than some have managed in modern times and I could tell you a story of this I have personal experience of.

I think I've made my point and we needn't discuss ramps further. Equally I'm tired of Egyptologist bashing. So after 132 posts, can we limit discussion to the mechanics of the interestesing proposition you have put forward that some form of cable haulage using counterweighted water buckets to haul stones up and perhaps into place? How was movement controlled? Particularly of the buckets to prevent water slopping out - a potential disaster for such a system. Do you have any idea about impulsive forces in cables used in this manner and the sort of cables that would be needed to carry these loads?

This is a prime example of why folks find discourse with you so difficult. Why did you totally ignore the fact that I specificlly excluded the pyramids from my question?

Setting aside the building of the pyramids for the moment. Do you honestly believe that the Ancient Egyptians had no ramps whatsover anywhere at all?

We can, however agree that, as you said, translation is very difficult because it has to be not only from their language to ours, but their culture to ours. For my part I would have caught on much more quickly if the translation had been vessel instead of boat. We clearly have a greater range of words available and it is the skill of the translator to get the meaning across by selecting the appropriate modern word or phrase rather than disgorging the dictionary. Translating poetry is even more difficult.

Well we will have to agree to differ on this aspect, since I believe in calling a spade a spade.

The Ancient Egyptians has wells. What did they use to haul water out in? And where in the English Language has anyone ever written that they hauled water out of a well in a boat?

I'm gald you have managed to convince yourself, since some of your arguments have a plausibility. But, and I don't care who does the translating, a boat is not and never has been a container of water. Unfortunately such a basic blunder can only cast a shadow over other statements of translation. But if you are going to achieve any credence with the modern engineering community, you need to speak to them in a language they will understand, and further not try to tell them that it is easy to move multi-tonne objects hundreds or even thousands of metres basically horizontally but generally uphill.

The story of Smeaton's Tower is fascinating in its own right, but its relevance here is that, like the pyramids and masonry arch bridges, it is a gravity compression structure. The Tower was built as a lighthouse on a rock in the English Channel. Smeaton's Tower replaced a couple of previous structures that had not withstood the rigours of the marine environment. It was a masonry structure where all the blocks had to be meticulously fitted together to provide the strength against the battering waves, using their combined weight. It was conceived as being 'grafted onto the native rock' and every block was cut to fit the shape of the supporting natural rock. Because it was built so well it did withstand the conditions, until it was dismantled and rebuilt as a tourist attraction in Plymouth. You ask why the builders of the pyramids needed to level the site and construct a strong and stable support platform for the pyramid. Well perhaps they found this easier than Smeaton's solution of cutting blocks to fit the local topography. Whichever the pyramids obviously have a sound and stable foundation, or they would not have stood so long. Gravity compression structures do not take kindly to differential movements of the foundations. But then, perhaps they killed two birds with one stone (forgive the pun) and created a water catchment basin as well. Every block in the pyramids was transported many many times as far horizontally as vertically. This was no mean undertaking and I did not realise you were discounting this part of the journey. Yes the builders may have had lifting apparatus that lifted the blocks vertically. But I doubt they had apparatus that could lift and translate the blocks as well. It would also have been a lot easier if you had translated whatever word it was to bucket not boat since you are suggesting that the lifiting was performed via counterweight, filled with water. To a modern engineer the term hydraulic lifting implies the use of water pressure not its weight. Finally you ask (apparently rhetorically) why would someone clear a site and then leave it? Well I can point so several such instances within a mile or two here, where sites have been cleared and left for some years. The intention is obviously to one day develop these sites. So all you are describing is readily understood in practical constructiuon terms. But that does not mean you do not have a point. It just shows that ancient and modern builders were not as far apart as is sometimes thought. Which rather strengthens my observation that termporary works are generally removed at the end of construction so you will never be able to deduce what was used from what remains.

Ok I get the picture you are not interested in anything anyone else has to say. Yes your conclusion is possible. But there are others, and as someone who has considerably more construction experience I offered you the story of Smeaton's Tower. It contains the Civil Engineering theory for alternative reasons, which I would think are linked to the reason the pyramids have stood for so long. Did you look it out? Again there are potential alternative explanations. I don't doubt some of the observable detail in what you say but your statements are given to hyperbole and sometimes lead to into the realms of mumbo jumbo that 'pyramidology' is so famous for. Do you have any idea of the true implications if your statement 'perfectly aligned N/S' ? The ancient Egyptians knew nothing of magnetic compasses and the magnetic poles. But they had clear night skies and mapped some stars, including Polaris. Here is the variation of North over a 5 year period, due to the Earth's 'wobble' about its axis (source Bomford's Geodesy) How much do you think it has varied over a 5000 year period? So yes, but all means put forward ideas, but be prepared to test them against practical observations and other credible alternatives. We can then re-examine your claim that the artificial limestone 'pavement' was meant for water collection is the only credible explanation. That is the way to take a few more steps along the road to truth.

'Light blue touch paper and retire immediately' This is the problem, n'est pas? This whole tirade that pours out when someone mentions the word 'ramp'. If you will listen, I will relate the story given by Professor Harvey following his visit to China to study their bridge building program. It concerns the building of a (modern) bridge by the local Womens's Institute, entirely by manual labour (ie no modern mechanised plant). The bridge is a viaduct crossing the flood plain of one of China's major rivers and is several kilometers long.

In all honesty I think you have said a great deal more ( though you were not the only one). This thread could have been cut in half and half again and be much more scientifically useful as a result. I have already acknowledged that I am almost totally ignorant of the linguistic background here so cannot comment on that aspect. Is it more important to arrive at the truth (as equal to a thesis that fits all known facts) or to demolish some one else's ideas?

Strange, can you prove your alternatives and can you say that you are offering cladking a fair hearing? Cladking has contradicted himself many times in this thread, but he has also made many valid points that merit consideration and surely the truth is the nobody knows what actually happened and there remain many unanswered questions. If someone misapplies the quadratic equations formula we do not lay into him but try to get him to use the formula correctly to arrive at the appropriate answer. So it should be with more nebulous thoughts. Looking around at the other threads currently available I see a number of really crackpot subjects plus some that have nothing to do with science. Surely we all wish to promote subjects worthy of discussion?

For a self professed linguist you have taken remarkably little notice when I have explained that I use some terms in their technical sense. Limestone pavement is one of them. I have already posted a link to the geological definition. Several times in this thread I find that I see a post from yourown goodself and it is a response to someone else so I leave it. But later (by chance) I find additional response to one of my questions appended, after I have posted. Are you saying the aquifers are not limestone? Do you have any data on the strata to back up this claim about the depth of the features? There are some pretty substantial underground limestone features in other parts of the world.

Thank you for that useful answer. +1 I had a quick shufty round Google and found a lot of mumbo jumbo. However does that not make it typical Karst scenery? Every site on Earth can probably claim at least one unique selling point, but you offered the tantalising suggestion of numerous usp's. and a nearby large river that moves about in its course over centuries? there are quite of few of those around too. I'm not sure about the composition of the salts in the aquifer water, I would have to look further into those. But I would be very suprised if a substantial limestone pavement of a venerable age measured in thousands of years did not contain fissures and caves.

I would be interested in some information about this.

You have said a lot about language, but I have found what you mean by the above statement very difficult to divine, and I think that also applies to others. This, I fear, has lead to much confusion and unwarranted recrimination. We must keep working away at communication.

I hope you don't subscribe to this nonsense. Dragging stones off the ship is at least as bad as dragging them on. This is another question I asked earlier, but received no response to. Captain "Ere, guv, ye capsize my ship 'n all, an 'twill cost ee dear"