studiot

I wouldn't necessarily "expect" any sand at all to appear. That it does strongly suggests they either needed it for some function or that it was a byproduct of a natural process. It certainly seems that most functions that can be served by sand can be served by just about any sand so why would they haul sand from a far away desert to their own desert? This isn't to say that it mustta come up with the water merely that the gravimetric scan suggests this sand might extend all the way to the entrance as would be predicted by my theory. My theory is far more extensive than I usually let on especially among scientists. This is because it is derived from what Egyptologists believe is a book of magic. The ancient language could be highly expressive and many words were virtually sentences. Some concepts would have been almost impossible to express at all and even simple concepts could talke several sentences. By the same token some sentences could express a great deal of information and paint whole pictures. They aparently called G1 "the sandbank of horrible face bringing water" and this isn't even the ancient language but a confusion of it. There are numerous clues in the PT about what chemicals are in the 1% impurities; Copper sulfate, calcium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium decahydrate, salt, sodium bicarbonate, copper hydroxide, siderite, "silicone" etc, etc... It should be a whole cocktail of chemicals that are implied or derived from what the builders actually said. I can't prove this because the tests won't get done. The reality is there but like "amun" it can't be seen. The Egyptians couldn't see it because it was hard to see, we can't see it because we refuse to look. Once again you are making things so difficult for yourself. I asked a simple question, seeking a simple answer. There was no trick question involved. Here is an earlier version of the same question. I am no expert on the subject of the pyramids, but have been involved in the building of many difficult structures myself and I can see that you have expended much effort researching this subject. It would, however, be nice if you would pay some attention to the lifetime of experience I am offerenig (for free) to perhaps further your subject. Several times we have arrived at a simple consensus where it is apparent that you and I are using technical terms differently. It would be helpful, to say the least, if we could do this more efficiently. Here is another practical and sensible question that could have been asked by the captain to the supply vessel crossing the Nile with the blocks. I've got yer blocks across the river guv, but the site is 5 miles inland. How do we get them there?

So why would you expect 'local' sand at this location? And why are you studiously ignoring my requests for hydraulic details of the boats which you allege carried the stones?

Perhaps we should clear up the term pavement? Do you mean an artificial flat area? Or do you mean the natural geographical presentation of the native country rock as here in limestone pavement https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=limestone+pavement&gbv=2&oq=limestone+pavement&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0l10.1110.4250.0.7922.18.12.0.6.6.0.125.1252.5j7.12.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.18.1487.pRHiYbw_3I8

My confusion of geology stems partly from this quote I am confused because I am told that the pictures are of a limestone pavement. Limestone, so why is it suprising that they had to import sand if they need it? Sand does not come from limestone. And partly from these quotes Balsalt pavement in the same location as limestone pavement? Thank you for the comments about the water, as I understand it you are saying the quality of the Nile water was less attractive than artesian or spring water and that the collection basins were not for rainfall but to pond the subterranean water at its outlet. You still have not explained how the shallow draft boat you drew could displace enought water to float. Did you understand the question?

Desert Sand Basalt Limestone Your post # 63 picture. I'm having trouble reconciling these geologically speaking, but perhaps our geology specialist can explain? cladking, I have no idea of the human geography of the area at the time of the pharohs, but what do you think was the reason for building water catchment (rainfall?) basins in remote desert?

I really am confused now. Your sketch seems to me to indicate a (water lubricated?) ramp, where a sled is pulled up by suitable lines. I said earlier that there was no need for a slave army of men to pull the lines. I now understand your earlier reference to a funicular and a counterweight. There are many simpler ropage mechanisms they could have used, as in my earler references. One of these systems, including yours, could also have led to a vertical lift without a ramp, but it would have been necessary to bring (drag?) the blocks beneath the lifter somehow. Thank you.

And how did the sled-boat in your sketch displace enough water to float? Edit I am trying to take your ideas seriously so I wish you would stop disparaging egyptologists and ramps in your replies to me. I really don't know or care whether ramps or egyptologists were used. I have to discard more than half your posts as chaff to find some kernal to think about.

I'm sorry but I require considerably more convincing than your selective proclamations. That does not mean I support any other theory I treat them all the same. Nor does the use of ramps require men to drag anything. What do you know about the mechanics of 'dragging'? You say both that it is impossible to use canals and that canals have been found. I have never been to the pyramids so I do not know the site. You keep referring to cliffs, but I see no cliffs in any photos. You have (I think) told me that most of the stone is limestone quarried from within a few hundred yards of the pyramids. I was thinking the stone had travelled further. You state that derricks were not used, so how did they load and unload their ships? In particular how did they put large blocks of stone on board? If you try to drag a large weight aboard, all you will achieve is capsizing the boat or pushing it away. I am still waiting for the details of the boats capable of transporting 20 ton blocks.

It would seem that we cross posted as you added to your post whilst I was responding to your first line. Pressing the post button is easy to do, I have done it too early myself. So I am sorry if my last post came over as a tad strident. However you have still not responded to my main points. Hard information such as the distance from the pyramids to the quarry would really enhance discussion. Can you also list the height of the lift (ie to the top of the pyramid) and the rock material the blocks are composed of? Is there any evidence as to whether the blocks were cut/split and dressed on site or at the quarry? It would make sense to transport the stone by canal to site, but the canal would be at a fixed elevation, it would not run uphill as the work progressed. As I understand the history of engineering, the Ancient Egyptians were quite capable of using a loading/lifting derrick of the type in my logging link These could also have been deployed on the developing structure. A further possibility is that a very large ramp (as in Masada), larger than a pyramid, could have been constructed and the blocks lowered down to place. If you really want to explore the posiibilities, now is your chance.

The fact that the pyramids themselves exist suggest that some sort of temporary devices were used to build them. How about addressing my main questions? and please add this one What would be the draft of the boat (you keep using that term in preference to raft why is that?) that can reliably handle up to 40 tons displacement?

If you are serious about holding an adult discussion it would be nice if you would take time out from your florid exchanges with certain others to pursue this. I have never said ramps were or were not used, and have made several highly pertinent comments, to which I am still waiting for an answer. Further I am not an Egyptologist (whatever that means) and have no knowledge of the language or languages they used, so I feel rather insulted being lumped in with them. I do, however, have probably considerably more heavy engineering and construction knowledge than you do and could quite easily offer many other scenarios to be tested scientifically.

Thank you, I am quite capable of understanding hydraulic lifting techniques. The 'little boat' would not be so little. Rock has a density of around 2.4 - 2.6 so a two and a half ton (tonne) block would be approcimately 1 metre cubed. This would require something like 3 cubic metres displacement to allow handling stabilty, may be up to 5 cubic metres if you include the weight of the raft etc. But all this misses my point. Which is that since time immemorial builders have constructed temporary works they have removed when the permanent works are complete. I listed several possible lifting technologies, available to the Ancient Egyptians, including noting that the Harappans used this on the Indus and Ganges. But hydraulic lifting alone will not cut it for the final placement of the blocks. On a different note the siege of Rochester Castle provides an interesting demolition technology - pig fat. If I was really to play detective and try to determine how the pyramids were built, I would not start at the pyramids. The blocks must have come from something bigger so they must have had the capacity to handle bigger things. So I would try to start at the quarry and see if there were any relics of their cutting, handling and transport methods to be found. Transporting the blocks by raft from the quarry to the construction site would be a good solution.

Done, that will be one beer

Either it is a fact that the falsework is missing or it is not. It cannot also be a matter of belief. I offered you an alternative explanation, not base exclusively on ramps, that I'm willing to bet you had never considered before. I'm willing to bet that the Giza Construction plc woud have had all manner of prehistoric scaffolding, craneage, haulage lines and posts scattered around during construction and would have cleared it all up at the end. Here is another link to simple heavy materials handling in another industry (logging). Whilst skylines were probably beyond GizaCon some is basic and would have been available to them. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/1974_studier.pdf You should study it along with the book about Smeaton (he used water) Incidentally why is all the falsework also missing from Stonehenge, Karnak, The Parthenon, The Blue Mosque, The Coliseum etc?

I see no evidence of the constructuion method any more than I do in my quoted examples of later constructions.

For the reasons mentioned!!! The "ramps" point at the bottom of the pyramid. Also because they removed "ramps" (natural ground) even before construction began. I can't post a picture of it right now but the entire north and west sides of the second pyramid at Giza was extensively excavated far below bedrock even before the first stone went in. This was necessary because water had to be able to flow all around the pyramid before they could lift the first stone. That water flowed around it is established throughout the physical record but let's save this. I'm sorry I don't follow this response either. I didn't say they did or didn't use ramps. (I do know the Romans used them in their construction as in the siege of Masada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Masada) But what do you mean by a ramp and what do you mean by pointing down or that they were removed before construction began? It is normal construction technique to this day to create a level 'formation' (the modern word) So what? As a matter of interest in the building of interlocking masonry structures in difficult circumstances by primitive methods, Smeaton's Tower is worth a read https://wordery.com/smeatons-tower-christopher-severn-9780954275099?currency=GBP&gtrck=VmREc2dBTE1tU1BtdG9BWSsxREF6UFpKV0YrQi9YQzdtbWYvSXdacjFYUnpDYXM0YzVhZnNPdVltU1hhbThrdUFVb2hWc24ycWFEYk1yMVU0ZXU3R2c9PQ&gclid=CJX83qjugcECFafnwgodsi0Aig

How would one stand on the top of something before it was built, in order to drag stones up it, to build it? Alternatively if it was already built why drag stones up it?

Indeed yes. In fact modern practice is to construct what is known as 'falsework' in order to build the permanent work. This is a bit like building a giant jig as a metalworker or carpenter might do to fabricate a door or some other work. The falsework is deliberately removed at the end of the construction, because no one want to see temporary support holding up the nice new bridge. How do we know that the ancient Pharoh's didn't also cause this to happen because all they wanted to see was pyramid? We know that the Egyptians, the Harappans and the Babylonians all used temporary works in their respective river management, but often left them in place afterwards, perhaps for the opposite reason ie these were utilitarian works not showpieces.

Cladking, Do you have any idea how the Clifton Suspension Bridge, The Maillart Elastic Line Bridges, The Forth Bridge, The Tay Bridge, the Kocher Valley Viaduct (amongst others) were built? And is there any on site evidence today of this? Oh and I have never called myself a scientist.

Hello Ben and welcome.

I agree, but with several different authorities involved are they each telling the other all they know? Is any one body collecting and collating all the available information?

An electric current is what happens when there is a net movement of electric charge in a particular direction. Charge is regarded as being 'carried' by various bodies, also called charge carriers. It does not exist by itself. Two types of carrier you will encounter in biology are electrons (negative carrier) which are sub atomic particles (smaller than atoms and part of them) and ions which are atoms (or molecules) with an excess of electrons (negative carrier) or a deficiency of them (positive carrier). Positive charges moving in one direction are equivalent to negative charge moving in the opposite direction. Your instructor meant the movement of electrons when referring to charge current and the movement of ions when referrring to ionic current. Ionic currents normally occur in solution, since ionisation is one way that solutes can dissolve in solvents.

These books listed are accessible from middle high school through senior high and onto first degree level, except the last which took me right the way through O level, A level, Degree, Professional Institution and Postgrad and is still going strong. Atkins Molecules. (P W Atkins) a really delightful book described by some as the most beautiful chemistry book ever written. The Mathematical Mechanic (Walter Levi) a brilliant melding of maths and physics. Levi sets out to prove mathematical theorems in as many physics ways as possible. Cats Paws and Catapaults (Steven Vogel). Compares and contrasts the approach by Nature asd Man to the solution of important engineering problems. describes materials science v muscle action and much more. From Calculus to Chaos (Acheson.) The development of non linear dynamics brought to life and a uniquely simple way. The Penguin and Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry. (David Wells) Fascinating reading for a dark winter's night. Did you know Napoleon was responsible for a theorem in Maths? The Day the Earth Nearly Died (Michael J Benton) Wonderful balanced roundup geological study of the five main mass extinctions in the Earth's geological history and more. and finally that piece de resistance A Compendium of Mathematics and Physics (Myler and Sutton)

Regretfully I have to disagree. This discussion has occured several times recently and each time a mathematical proponent have backed away from offering a mathematical solution or route to a mathematical solution to a part of physics that requires a physical process to take place in order to determine the result. I repeat that challenge here. I will tell you as exactly as you like how much coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and cement (or you can tell me it doesn't matter) and I ask for a mathematically exact quantity of water to add to make concrete of desired consistency and strength. There are methods which will get you near, but the final exact quantity has to be trimmed to suit as part of the process.

I doubt anyone's list is exhaustive. Personally I think of structure as being more in the way of the formal axioms eg a space with one binary operation or two. So structure can be induced or inherited. Whereas I think of arrangements in terms of combs and perms or left handed v right handed or a star v convex region and so on. But arrangements just are. So the fruit is hanging on the 5th or the 15th branch of the tree or whatever. But that is no reason to expect every tree to have fruit on those branches. I think mathematics is about analysis and self consistency.