How was the Great Pyramid built?

Could the Egyptians have used the Pythagorean theorom to create right angles? If they understood the relationship between the sides of a right triangle, it would be pretty simple to create a right angle knowing that if one side was 3 measures and the other side was 4 measures that the diagonal has to be 5 measures if the corner is 90 degrees.

While they did not call it the Pythagorean theorom, they certainly had a vast knowledge and capabilities when it came to geometry. They understood angles although I don't know of any cases where they defined a right angle explicitly. Here is a link to some examples of the level of mathmatical knowledge they did have.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

it would make more sense for the internal passages to have been built into the structure rather than carved into it or something... it's more solid that way.but however it happened... it wasn't built by hebrew slaves *snickers*

One recent statement made here at EvC was that somehow the technology to build ascending staircases and tunnels was lost. Even though that is really so stupid a statement as to even imagine someone making, since it was mentioned, I would like to address it.All original interior passageways in any of the pyramids were constructed as ascending stairways or tunnels except those that tunneled into the bedrock below the final structure.Let me repeat:All original interior passageways in any of the pyramids were constructed as ascending stairways or tunnels except those that tunneled into the bedrock below the final structure.When you are building something course by course, you start building at the bottom.To build a tunnel, regardless of whether it will eventually lead down or up, is nothing more than an empty space in the current level.When you add the next course, you simply leave a gap that is slightly offset from the one below. Then, someone chips away the edges to make the growing ramp relatively level.To say that the technology to build ascending stairways was lost is frankly absurd, since the exact same procedures are used to build descending, ascending, level, winding or any stairway, tunnel or corridor.The interior rooms and passages were constructed on the current surface. The ONLY technology required was being able to plan construction and NOT put a rock there.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for kicking this off again, Jar. Hopefully, it will discuss the subject on a higher level than the drivel over at the Zoo-oops-Showcase. Any thoughts on the theory than pyramid blocks were cast for the Big Three at Giza? I mentioned Davidovits` book--The Pyramids, an Enigma Solved--on another thread. More can be read at the Geopolymer Institue website, if you`re not up to speed on the subject.Geopolymer Institute – Promoting the geopolymer science since 1979

Sorry, double postEdited by Nighttrain, : No reason given.

I'd say the odds were pretty close to zero since they have found and identified the quarries where the stone came from. In addition, the working marks on the stones supports the idea of quarry worked material.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Au contraire, Former Hairy One, the samples from quarries across the land bear no resemblance to the 'stones' used in the Giza trio (Davidovits p35). Although ”rubble’ from the quarries was almost certainly used. And there are few or no quarry marks on said stones. In fact, quarry marks did not appear till c.1600B.C. (p57), and can be attributed to restoration work by later rulers.” The presence of fossils in a jumbled order in the blocks is a pointer to casting, while nummulites in natural limestone are 'frozen' in horizontal sedimentary layering.
” The density of fossils tapers off towards the top of the blocks as one finds with aggregate sorting in concrete (p100)
” The presence of organic hair and entrained air bubbles in samples taken from internal blocks points to casting (p90).
” Wood-grain impressions from the concrete boxing were seen on samples from the Ascending Passage (p76).
” A sample from the Great Pyramid using X-ray chemical analysis revealed Brushite, a phosphate mineral not present in natural limestone (p85).
” The high moisture content of the GP structure is consistent with concrete (p95).
” ”Lift lines’ are apparent when concrete was not poured continuously during the casting of a block (p98).
” Inclusions (such as small stones) in limestone blocks point to casting (p103,106).
” Mortar used between layers point to a familiarity with concrete.
” Multiple ”lift lines’ point to casting and not natural strata (p105) Even in the largest of stones (c 500 tons), the three irregular strata are too close together to match natural strata in the Giza limestone.
” Quarry rocks carry cracks ranging from microscopic to large. The Pyramid blocks carry no cracks (p106)
” Menkure`s pyramid contains carved syenite granite from Aswan, but they date from a restoration by a subsequent ruler (p107)
” No evidence, no tools have been produced to explain the hairs-breadth precision (Petrie 0.002 inch) of the joints in the casing blocks. (p184)
” Inscriptions on the casing blocks of the GP (and others) are only found on the bottom, suggesting they were cast upside-down (p185).
” Mortices in the Ascending Passage point to support props holding up boxing to cast the ceilings (p186)
” Tests by the French Electricity Company, E.D.F.,in 1986, found the bulk density of the GP was 20% lighter than natural limestone (p189)
” SRI International in 1974, found the density of the blocks of Khafra`s pyramid were 20% lighter than the bedrock limestone (p189).
” The sarcophagus in the King`s chamber has always been a puzzle, being assumed to have been cut from a single huge granite block, with sides and corners cut to a degree of precision almost beyond the reach of today`s masons. Possibly it was cast in place. (p190).
” Block sizes increased as the GP height grew. Only casting in situ can explain how the Egyptians manoevred these into place (p190)Sorry for the book references, but it gets fairly technical when Davidovits gets into the mining and chemical analysis, and you really have to study the evidence at length including the papers presented to a number of scientific congresses. As RAZD says--Enjoy

Well, I have been following his speculations for awhile now, at least the last 20 years or so. It has been interesting but so far I would say, not very convincing.I still place the probability at pretty close to zero.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dammit, Jar, that comes perilously close to a typical fundy non-reply.

There is no such thing as a none stretchy rope at those lengths. Even a metal wire would have more stretch than the amount of error in the pyramids.

With blocks.
I believe the pyramids was built using a circle as the measuring device. That is why the measurements are perfect, there is no stretch, and why the base x 2 divided by the height gives you Pi
They just rolled the circle a set amount of times to get the length, and height.If the Egyptians knew A+B=C then they could have easily made a perfect square base.Leveling the base was done with an almost full bottle of vodka I thought moving the stones was done of logs, and they built a large ramp (from sand or dirt) to get the stones to the top, then removed the ramp at the end. Aren't there remants of the ramp today?Also, I heard once that it was thought that the Nile was closer to where the pyramids were built.
Maybe it was possible that they constructed a large "tub", the base of the pyramid, and troughed the water into the tub from the nile, then got their level marks from that?
{ABE}
OR troughs along the four base walls, deep enough to self level themselves. (end edit)
There also seems to be some sort of canal about 3000ft away from the pyramids.
The trouble I see with this idea is that the pyramids are 285ft above sea level, and the canal is 75ft. The Nile at that point is 55 ft above sea level.
I am using google earth to see this, so I could be wrong.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Nah, it is classic tentativity. He has presented his best case. So far he has not convinced either me or most Egyptologists. Casting is a neat idea, but doesn't explain all the evidence. Why did they find whole metal working areas with all the evidence of casting and reworking bronze and copper tools used to shape and finish quarried blocks? Why have they not found areas on site for casting concrete blocks?He may well be right but so far has not been able to convince those intimately involved in studying and maintaining the pyramids.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Remember the annual floods.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am hearing some very out-there theories on lining up the pyramid, so I will give what I think to be the most reasonable one, adapted from a book I read (see figure below):After the ground is leveled, a stick is placed in the ground at a 90 angle--we all agree they had the ability to determine right angles. Then, as the Sun rises, the stick casts a shadow (1). The length of the shadow is taken, and the workers sit back for a couple hours . As the Sun gets to the other side of the stick, they begin to measure the shadows casted until a shadow is casted EXACTLY the same length as the first (2). A line can be drawn from the two endpoints of the shadows and then that line can be divided in half. The half-way point of this line, makes a point on the leveled plane that, when connected to the point of the stick, forms a line. This final line is PERFECTLY aligned to North and South.This would make very easy and accurate measurements of North and South, and doesn't require the leap to believe that the Egyptians had superior astronomical knowledge. MaxEdited by Jonicus Maximus, : Link phix ;-)Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : Image adjustments