How did the Egyptians build the pyramids?

[GoodAttention]

The archeologists and Egyptologists avoid notions of "common sense" and rely on the objective verifiable evidence.

Which is why their conclusion is non-sensical.

You are an intelligent person, tell me how these massively heavy stones were moved off the boat?

 

[blü 2]

Remarkable.

You'd sooner believe in magic than the existence of momentum and potential energy be harnessed to do work!!!

People are strange. We reason in circles to know everything and then are nearly blind to evidence that doesn't support us.

Doctrine rules. Kill the heretics.

Magic frequently seems more likely than your alternatives. I don't thereby suggest that magic is found in reality, of course.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good one.

Yes I’m holding to the theory of limestone being ground down and then cast into blocks.

It’s clear the Egyptians had Moh’s Hardness scale down pat, I mean they have statues made of quartz, so they had to use a harder stone to carve such items.

Ruby? Diamonds even?

Just to add geologists like myself can easily distinguish between natural stone blocks and those made of concrete. The evidence is clear by far most of blocks used n the pyramid construction are natural stone.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which is why their conclusion is non-sensical.

You are an intelligent person, tell me how these massively heavy stones were moved off the boat?

The boats were actually barges. The barges can be grounded, stone removed and floated from the weight of the stone removed.

 

[Pogo]

It makes far more sense that 40 men each unloaded 50-60kg of ground limestone each into “Khufu’s Lake”, from where the limestone was taken out and then cast as stones.

Does the record state specifically “block”?

Interesting hypothesis, having made it, what is your evidence that the material that made up the pyramids was made up of reconstituted material?

 

[GoodAttention]

Just to add geologists like myself can easily distinguish between natural stone blocks and those made of concrete. The evidence is clear by far most of blocks used n the pyramid construction are natural stone.

Are you saying there are very significant differences between reconstituted limestone and natural limestone?

Adding on the 4000+ years, plus limestone coating over the blocks too?

 

[cladking]

When you say 'The gods', which gods are you referring to and how many of them?

Cavemen only knew about 25 of them but by the time of the great pyramids ancient science had found hundreds. These are each an anthropomorphization of physical principles. For instance, what we know as momentum or "upward" was named "shu" and was the very first god I solved. Words were representations and had no definition. They acquired their meaning from proper usage in a sentence and from their many names. One of shu's names was "he who embraces all thing". You couldn't think of shu without thinking of al his names you knew. If you used improper phraseology everyone would spot it and if it were simply wrong your utterance would have no meaning at all.

Not only shu built pyramids by taking stones up the sides but he needed "tefnut" (downward) to operate the henu boat filled with water and overseen by isis the goddess of the counterweight. It was tefnut who made the earth high under the sky by means of her arms; her arms being the cables strung across the pyramid top.

They didn't think like we do. "Gods" to them weren't imaginary consciousnesses that determined man's fate but rather they were the parts of their model of reality which was mirrored in their brains and speech. They were the parts of the model that caused reality to unfold as it does. Their simple science saw these only in human terms so shu and tefnut were siblings. What goes shu must come tefnut.

There is no magic of the sort imagined by Egyptology and the builders believed in no magic and no religion. These are merely confusions caused by our language, assumptions, and thinking.

 

[cladking]

Wow this is beginning to sound like science, take available evidence and hypothesize how it might have happened and then see if the observations are consistent with what has happened.

Exactly!!

Then using my models I can make accurate predictions about what still exists at Giza. I have made several predictions would simply be impossible without knowing how the pyramids were built.

 

[GoodAttention]

Interesting hypothesis, having made it, what is your evidence that the material that made up the pyramids was made up of reconstituted material?

To start, would we considered the pyramid stones to have become discoloured over time or has it held its colour?

 

[GoodAttention]

The boats were actually barges. The barges can be grounded, stone removed and floated from the weight of the stone removed.

Were the stones pulled off? Pushed off? Lifted off?

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying there are very significant differences between reconstituted limestone and natural limestone?

Extremely different

Adding on the 4000+ years, plus limestone coating over the blocks too?

The blocks become weathered revealing natural features over time not coated.

 

[Pogo]

Which is why their conclusion is non-sensical.

You are an intelligent person, tell me how these massively heavy stones were moved off the boat?

I'm guessing you are new at this and haven't heard the old adage that common sense is like dirt, it is every where and basically worthless.
Which is not to say that it doesn't work in many cases, but that it is not a useful guide to the greater questions in the world.

 

[cladking]

At the base of the pyramids, workers unloaded the rock to cover the outer layer of the Great Pyramid

Absolutely not.

This is mere conjecture. It does not say this nor does it say there were ramps or that any stones were destined to build G1.

All we can say is most of the stones logically were probably going to be used to clad G1. At least one of the stones probably had nothing to do with the pyramid. He and his men used his tugboat to move a stone that was apparently in the wrong position.

Read it! It nowhere supports ANY Egyptological belief and contradicts a couple of them. It does not contradict any of mine but I was surprised to see a man as high ranking as a boat captain probably couldn't speak Ancient Language. Even this is hardly certain.

Everybody sees what supports their beliefs and calls it "evidence". Everything else tends to be invisible.

 

[Pogo]

Cavemen only knew about 25 of them but by the time of the great pyramids ancient science had found hundreds. These are each an anthropomorphization of physical principles. For instance, what we know as momentum or "upward" was named "shu" and was the very first god I solved. Words were representations and had no definition. They acquired their meaning from proper usage in a sentence and from their many names. One of shu's names was "he who embraces all thing". You couldn't think of shu without thinking of al his names you knew. If you used improper phraseology everyone would spot it and if it were simply wrong your utterance would have no meaning at all.

Not only shu built pyramids by taking stones up the sides but he needed "tefnut" (downward) to operate the henu boat filled with water and overseen by isis the goddess of the counterweight. It was tefnut who made the earth high under the sky by means of her arms; her arms being the cables strung across the pyramid top.

They didn't think like we do. "Gods" to them weren't imaginary consciousnesses that determined man's fate but rather they were the parts of their model of reality which was mirrored in their brains and speech. They were the parts of the model that caused reality to unfold as it does. Their simple science saw these only in human terms so shu and tefnut were siblings. What goes shu must come tefnut.

There is no magic of the sort imagined by Egyptology and the builders believed in no magic and no religion. These are merely confusions caused by our language, assumptions, and thinking.

Oooh We Ooooh

 

[GoodAttention]

I'm guessing you are new at this and haven't heard the old adage that common sense is like dirt, it is every where and basically worthless.
Which is not to say that it doesn't work in many cases, but that it is not a useful guide to the greater questions in the world.

I never underestimate the predictability of human stupidity.

I also don’t overestimate human practicality, especially those living in times without the wheel.

 

[cladking]

The archeologists and Egyptologists avoid notions of "common sense" and rely on the objective verifiable evidence.

You should investigate this contention. At the root of everything they say are the assumptions that the builders were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed.

Are you aware there is no direct evidence of any sort any great pyramid was a tomb? Are you aware that in all that writing Egyptologists say supports their beliefs that nowhere does it say ANY pyramid was a tomb? The actual builders of the pyramids said many times that the pyramids were not tombs and were the king himself (a mnemonic). I've counted over 100 times they said this and ZERO times they alled the pyramid a tomb.

"He is the pyramid"
"The king does not rot 8in the ground" because he is cremated. And, yes, they also said he was cremated.

Everything believed by Egyptology is based not on science which they refuse to do but on assumptions and et als.

 

[shunyadragon]

To start, would we considered the pyramid stones to have become discoloured over time or has it held its colour?

Weathered rock like limestone has natural distinctive properties different from concrete, and it can be tested.

 

[GoodAttention]

Extremely different

Simple examples would be helpful.

The blocks become weathered revealing natural features over time not coated.

Wouldn’t both undergo similar chemical weathering?

 

[shunyadragon]

You should investigate this contention. At the root of everything they say are the assumptions that the builders were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed.

Are you aware there is no direct evidence of any sort any great pyramid was a tomb? Are you aware that in all that writing Egyptologists say supports their beliefs that nowhere does it say ANY pyramid was a tomb? The actual builders of the pyramids said many times that the pyramids were not tombs and were the king himself (a mnemonic). I've counted over 100 times they said this and ZERO times they alled the pyramid a tomb.

"He is the pyramid"
"The king does not rot 8in the ground" because he is cremated. And, yes, they also said he was cremated.

Everything believed by Egyptology is based not on science which they refuse to do but on assumptions and et als.

The archeologists and Egyptologists avoid notions of "common sense" and rely on the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[GoodAttention]

Weathered rock like limestone has natural distinctive properties different from concrete, and it can be tested.

Reconstituted limestone is not concrete.