How were the Egyptian Pyramids Built?

  • Thread starter extraordinarygirl
  • Start date
In summary: The Second theory is that the Egyptian slaves built them. But there are some flaws in this theory because, how were all the workers fed for the 4000 years it took to build them. How did they transport that many stone blocks to the top of the pyramid (which was 4000 ft high). If they had ramps, the slight angle of the ramp would have made the ramp bigger than the pyramids. There was no rope to pulll the blocks up the ramp. As well, trees were scarce in Egypt and were needed for shade and food. Although, they could have imported wood from Alexandria, and floated it down the Nile.The Third theory is that they composed a formula of natron and silt in the Nile that would
  • #36
Hmmm...

Questions:

How is the exact center of the Earth's landmass determined?

What is a flat mountain? More to the point, where is the flat mountain? Giza is about 50 or 60 metres above sea level, IIRC. Don't they mean "flat, solid granite bedrock"?

Why does it "just so happen" that they're on solid granite? Wasn't that by design?

Sorry, Carl, but there must be better sites on the pyramids out there.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #37
Tojen said:
Hmmm...

Questions:

How is the exact center of the Earth's landmass determined?

What is a flat mountain? More to the point, where is the flat mountain? Giza is about 50 or 60 metres above sea level, IIRC. Don't they mean "flat, solid granite bedrock"?

Why does it "just so happen" that they're on solid granite? Wasn't that by design?

Sorry, Carl, but there must be better sites on the pyramids out there.

How about this one: an account of a study done in 1881.

All the Arab commentators prior to the fourteenth century tell us that the Pyramid casing was a marvel of architecture that caused the edifice to glow brilliantly under the Egyptian sun. It consisted of an estimated 22 acres of 8 foot thick blocks, each weighing in the region of 16 tons, `so subtilly jointed that one would have said that it was a single slab from top to bottom'. A few surviving sections can still be seen today at the base of the monument. When they were studied in 1881 by Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, he noted with astonishment that `the mean thickness of the joints is 0.020 of an inch; and, therefore, the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line and from a true square is but 0.01 of an inch on a length of 75 inches up the face, an amount of accuracy equal to the most modern opticians' straight edges of such a length.'

Another detail that Petrie found very difficult to explain was that the blocks had been carefully and precisely cemented together: `To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the joint seems almost impossible . . ."
Also `almost impossible', since the mathematical value pi (3.14) is not supposed to have been calculated by any civilization until the Greeks stumbled upon it in the third century BC," is the fact the designed height of the Egypt First Pyramid 481.3949 feet bears the same relationship to its base perimeter (3023.16 feet) as does the circumference of any circle to its radius. This relationship is 2 pi (i.e. 481.3949 feet x 2 x 3.14 = 3023.16 feet).

for the rest of this article: http://www.egyptattraction.com/pyramids.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Largest and oldest Egyptian Pyramid...

Was a monument to Water (Molecule), and had religious significance to those that built it.
It was NOT designed to be a mausoleum, contrary to popular thinking.
 
  • #39
But the oldest Egyptian pyramid is not the largest.
 
  • #40
I stand by what I wrote.
 
  • #41
BenBen said:
I stand by what I wrote.
It's still wrong.
 
  • #42
Plastic Photon said:
Well, the best theory I have heard is that they constructed the walls of the Pantheon first, and all but the dome, filled the inside with dirt and molded this to fit a dome. It seems elaborate and time consuming.
Actually that was suggested by a city architect in Florence to build what is now known as Brunelleschi's dome on the cathedral.
He also had the genius idea of burying coins in the mound as it was built, then the peasants would dismantle the mound searching for the coins saving the city the effort of removing it! He didn't consider if the peasants would wait for them to be done with it - which is why he didn't get the job and it is called Brunelleschi's dome.

The pantheon is easy to build with Roman scaffolding, compared to the colloseum it's not very big although it is a very clever piece of engineering. It uses empty wine bottles embedded in the concrete to make it lighter and has a thickness that decreases toward the top as it bears less load.
 
  • #43
No, it's not "I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman"

The 3 Pyramids at Giza (Border) and the Sphinx are older than ANY of the other monuments of Egypt. It doesn't matter what you are saying- you represent the kind of thinking that used to burn people at the stake for opposing the established order. You may have had the temporary satisfaction of slaughtering innocent people, but in time, history has uncovered exactly what people like you were! Have a nice day. End of transmission and end of my involvement with this pointless discourse. "When shown the moon, the fool scrutinizes and questions the nature of the finger"- Old Chinese saying.
 
  • #44
BenBen said:
The 3 Pyramids at Giza (Border) and the Sphinx are older than ANY of the other monuments of Egypt.
I was going to point out that the Giza pyramids are the best designed and constructed following on from earlier step and bent pyramids, proving they were a later devlopment.
Then it occurred to me, what about the effects of city planners and architects!
Then it's obvious - the perfect pyramids were built first, the city ordered some more but put them out to the lowest tender and ended up with a stepped one, then the architects designed one and ended up with a bent pyramid (well it looked ok on the powerpoint).
 
  • #45
Is there an esoteric reason for the pyramids being, well, pyramid-shaped? and what about other pyramids, ancient and otherwise in the world? do different religions attach significance to pyramin shaped objects? bury their dead in or under pyramids? I've found a few sites on scientific explanations, I just wondered what other beliefs there may be surrounding pyramids as a shape, in different cultures.
 
  • #46
There is (AFAIK) no religous signifiance of thepyramid in Egypt, it's just a very easy way to make a very large stable object.
The first pyramids evolved from just piles of rock over tombs, the earliest ones are stepped and at least one is bent (it started too steep and had to be modified a shallower angle halfway up)
Presumably other cultures in meso-america came up with the same idea. Streets in New York are straight lines - it doesn't mean they were built by the Romans.
 
  • #47
sphalkya said:
Is there an esoteric reason for the pyramids being, well, pyramid-shaped?

Yes, the ancients decided that pyramids were easier to build than dodecahedrons
 
  • #48
BWV said:
Yes, the ancients decided that pyramids were easier to build than dodecahedrons

:rofl::biggrin: Thanks for the laugh
 
  • #49
Has anyone read this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/006165552X/?tag=pfamazon01-20 I am interested in checking it out, but is it reputable? It claims to have figured out how the pyramids were built, using a special type of ramp built into the pyramid structure itself (or something like that). Looks very interesting.

Also are books by Graham Hancock any good or is he a quack? Archeology seems to have the mainstream stuff, then alternative stuff that isn't mainstream, but isn't junk research per se either, and then stuff that's way out there.

Would Hancock be akin to von Daniken or just alternative archeology?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Did you read this thread? A lot of information.

Also I'm not aware if Graham Hancock published anything peer-reviewed. Are his claims thoroughy substantiated with objective evidence? If not, it's nothing but speculation.
 
  • #51
Is this one of those ingenious spiral ramp theories??

1. We have REMAINS of exterior ramps only, AFAIK

2. There was no shortage of man-power in ancient Egypt.

3. It is technologically trivial to build an exterior ramp.

4. It is equally trivial to deconstruct it.

Hence, it is no particular reason to think that any other method would be bothered with.

Only SOLID material/scriptural evidence to the contrary is sufficient to give credence to such theories.
 
  • #52
arildno said:
3. It is technologically trivial to build an exterior ramp.
Somehow you would think so -
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fail-owned-ramp-and-staircase-fail.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
arildno said:
Is this one of those ingenious spiral ramp theories??

1. We have REMAINS of exterior ramps only, AFAIK

2. There was no shortage of man-power in ancient Egypt.

3. It is technologically trivial to build an exterior ramp.

4. It is equally trivial to deconstruct it.

Hence, it is no particular reason to think that any other method would be bothered with.

Only SOLID material/scriptural evidence to the contrary is sufficient to give credence to such theories.

Yeah sort of like a corkscrew he presented this theory a few years ago and was looking for evidence of such a ramp... don't know what happened with that it's probably all in the book though :tongue: so if you're interested in reading alternate theories of the sort then go ahead.
 
  • #54
mgb_phys said:
Somehow you would think so -
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fail-owned-ramp-and-staircase-fail.jpg
[/URL]
:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
arildno said:
Is this one of those ingenious spiral ramp theories??
3. It is technologically trivial to build an exterior ramp.
Hence, it is no particular reason to think that any other method would be bothered with.
Is there any evidence for a linear ramp over an external spiral ramp?
 
  • #56
arildno said:
Only SOLID material/scriptural evidence to the contrary is sufficient to give credence to such theories.

Pff.. at this point the whole 'mystery of the pyramids' thing is so hyped, I think you could actually build a full-scale pyramid using the 'mainstream idea' techniques and it still wouldn't convince some people that the ancient Egyptians didn't do it with some mysterious technology we haven't figured out yet.
 
  • #57
From what I know, as with the Kheops pyramid, there was (at least) one large linear ramp leading up to the construction level. Once that level was finished, the large ramp was presumably adjusted to lead up to the next level.

It is the remains of such a ramp I was thinking of (and that we DO have).
 
  • #58
alxm said:
Pff.. at this point the whole 'mystery of the pyramids' thing is so hyped, I think you could actually build a full-scale pyramid using the 'mainstream idea' techniques and it still wouldn't convince some people that the ancient Egyptians didn't do it with some mysterious technology we haven't figured out yet.

I'm sure we could build a pyramid with all techniques which have been suggested about how the Ancients did it. Does this mean they used every single method?

What I'm getting at is I think that the modern debate is mostly about which method was used... obviously there are always going to be some people out there that think crazy things but what's this matter?
 
  • #59
arildno said:
From what I know, as with the Kheops pyramid, there was (at least) one large linear ramp leading up to the construction level. Once that level was finished, the large ramp was presumably adjusted to lead up to the next level.

It is the remains of such a ramp I was thinking of (and that we DO have).

They also have evidence on other pyramids of step-ramps...
 
  • #60
Sorry! said:
They also have evidence on other pyramids of step-ramps...
Ok, I wasn't aware of that!

Thanks! :smile:
 
  • #61
You guys didn't miss this one, did you?

http://www.relevant-television.com/arikat/miniseries_story.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
arildno said:
Is this one of those ingenious spiral ramp theories??

1. We have REMAINS of exterior ramps only, AFAIK

2. There was no shortage of man-power in ancient Egypt.

3. It is technologically trivial to build an exterior ramp.

4. It is equally trivial to deconstruct it.

Hence, it is no particular reason to think that any other method would be bothered with.

Only SOLID material/scriptural evidence to the contrary is sufficient to give credence to such theories.

The book talks about an interior "spiral" type of ramp I believe. The book's theory is that the ramp was built into the structure of the pyramids.
 

Similar threads

History Exploring Megalithic Structures & Ancient Civilizations
    • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
How does the surface of a refracting prism become reflective?
    • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
676
How did egyptian mathematical fractions evolve in antiquity?
    • General Math
Replies
5
Views
1K
How does the surface of a refracting prism become reflective?
    • Optics
Replies
1
Views
778
How does mass affect time near the Great Pyramid of Giza?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
8K
Are Pyramids Made Out Of Concrete?
    • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
10
Views
6K
Are Egypt's Pyramids Built from Marine Fossils?
    • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
3K
B Nobel Prize for first exoplanet discovery
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Debunking the Myth of the Devil's Racetrack in Death Valley
    • Classical Physics
Replies
9
Views
2K
Is Silbury hill near stonehenge an egyptain pyramid?
    • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
30K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top