Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Egyptian Pyramids

  1. Oct 18, 2005 #1
    Hey, I'm working on the theories for how the pyramids in Egypt were built and I just wanted to know if you guys had any other points to add to what I have written.

    The first theory is that Aliens built them because they were so precise. The raitio of height to length equaled pi. They pointed to different constalations and to this day, no one has been able to make an exact replica of the pyramids. But, there are no traces of aliens existing, landing on earth etc.

    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 dry as rocks.( Has been tested by scientists.)Therefore they could pour the molds, then put them into the pyramid which would mean they wouldn't have to feed as many workers and wouldn't need the large ramps. But, how can we be sure they had the knowledge to think of this?


    If you have any imput what so ever on any of these theories I would greatly appreciate it. :smile:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 18, 2005 #2
    We know that the Jews were employed as brickmakers in Egypt before Moses lead them away. Since brick was a common structural material, it follows that experiementing with other formulas would be natural for them. Natron and silt wouldn't require any particular genius to discover as a cement; I believe they had lots of both.

    I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.

    In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.
     
  4. Oct 18, 2005 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here is where knowing some history can clear things up. Nothing mysterious, no aliens. The city that housed the builders has been excavated. Information on the workers has been found along with their gravesites, etc...

    The pyramids were a slow, natural progression in tomb building. Ancient tombs in Egypt started out as pits dug in the sand, then covered with rocks. Then someone added a stone slab on top of the rocks, as time went by, this became larger and more elaborate, they were called mastabas. The tops were flat. They started having layers (like a wedding cake) and this lead to the "step pyramid", the first attempt at a true pyramid was a failure, it is the "bent pyramid", they finally worked the design out and ended up with the final pyramids.

    Here are examples of the progression of Egyptian tombs.

    http://www.westga.edu/~rtekippe/slides2201/mastaba-pyramid.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2005
  5. Oct 18, 2005 #4
    another one of these types...
     
  6. Oct 19, 2005 #5
    Here is some evidence of Elephants in Egypt 2000 to 8000 BC, Elephants were very plentyful at the time:

    http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egam/ho_59.101.1.htm

    It's to bad the Egyptions didn't leave pictures of how they built the pyramids, seems like it was unimportant or maybe they wanted it to be a mystery.

    I wouldn't rule out these big mammals for moving stone since one Mature bull Elephant can out pull over a 100 men in a tug of war and can out pull a team of horses.:smile:
     
  7. Oct 19, 2005 #6

    James R

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The ratio isn't really that precise, and could be a coincidence. I don't know what you mean about pointing to different constellations. Nobody has tried making an exact replica; it's not that it would be impossible, but it would take a lot of work and materials, and for what?

    Most people think it wasn't slaves who built the pyramids these days, but ordinary Egyptians. Egypt is a fertile country, fed by the flooding of the Nile delta every year, so feeding people wasn't a problem.

    Some people have postulated ramps which wrapped around the outside of the pyramid, rather than just going up to it in a straight line. That would require much less sand.

    There is evidence that stone was quarried from far away and floated down the Nile to the construction sites.

    There's a lot of information on this kind of stuff on the web, which a brief google search should uncover.
     
  8. Oct 19, 2005 #7
    The easiest technique would be to build the Pyramid in steps, just like the first Pyramids were built, (Stepped Pyramid), Then building small acute
    sand stone Ramps between each step so the design looks like a square spiral ramp case, the smaller ramps were covered up as the finishing touches of limestone cement filled the steps into a smooth surface feature, The Ramps would of been masoned into place as limestone cement Ramps, Same material used to make the smooth surface of the pyramid, as the smooth face was added the ramps became apart of the face material and not detectable because the ramp material blended into the cement.
    Simple Masonry.:smile:
    http://images.google.com/imgres?img...images?q=giza+pyramid&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=G
    The Pyramids were built one foundation layer at a time from the ground up.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2005
  9. Oct 19, 2005 #8

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I thought it was fairly well established that the giza pyramids were made of nummulitic limestone of eocene age, The presence of large fossils of now extinct foraminifera more or less rules out casting of the blocks by man. I don't know if every block of every pyramid has been checked, so I suppose its possible that some cast blocks could have gone unnoticed. Do you know what pyramid this block belonged to?
     
  10. Oct 19, 2005 #9
    No, but what Intuitive said about everything being faced with limestone cement makes me think they might have been dealing with two blocks still cemented together. The hair would only have been in the cement bond layer. If the story's even true. They simply interviewed the guy who told the story: no shots or evidence of this hair in the rock was presented.
     
  11. Oct 19, 2005 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, the outer limestone casing was blocks of limestone that were polished, it wasn't a layer of a cement like substance.

    The earlier 5th dynasty pyramids were made with brick, perhaps the show you watched was about one of these pyramids?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2005
  12. Oct 19, 2005 #11
    I don't think so. This particular guy was maintaining that the Egyptians had cast all the blocks in place with a special formula. This split block incident was the main reason he seemed to think this.
     
  13. Oct 21, 2005 #12
    There have been many theories about the "capstone" of the Great Pyramid.

    Has it ever been proven that the Great Pyramid, in fact, did have a physical capstone at any point?

    o:)
     
  14. Oct 21, 2005 #13
    as far back as 60,000 BC, bitumen (oil) had already become a useful substance for early man.It was used to seal dwellings, and it uses were mentioned in the bible as a sealant used to construct the raft moses was found on "cradles sealed with bitumen." around 3500 BC the first genuine city was founded on the bank of the euphrates in iraq, this city, "Ur" or "Urkuk" is where cuneiform developed and some of the earliest translations show the production (simply gathering it up in clay pots) and export of petroleum was very common. perhaps they used oil to lubricate the logs and surfaces.
     
  15. Oct 22, 2005 #14
    I'd believe 6000 BC, but not 60,000.
     
  16. Oct 23, 2005 #15
    thanks for the correction
     
  17. Dec 8, 2005 #16
    "(which was 4000 ft high)." ? ?
    under 400 feet high

    it did not take 4000 years eathor more like less then 20 years each for the big ones

    they are just a big pile of rocks no need for UFO BS

    quaries have been found
    http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/070391.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2005
  18. Dec 12, 2005 #17

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You will want to be checking your facts, and checking the sources of those facts, before you go too far down this road.

    There is a lot of misinformation of this type out there - people are not above forcing the numbers to fit their wild ideas and then spreading those deceptions far and wide. von Daniken made a living off doing this.
     
  19. Jan 11, 2006 #18
    I have taken a number of art history classes, and how the pyramids (great pyramid Giza) were (was) built was never a topic. Although, we did discuss how the Pantheon and the Colosus of Rhodes were built. The Pantheon is extrodinary, I think a much greater wonder than the pyramids simple because of the size of the dome. How did they build the dome?

    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. But, when we got to the Colosus of Rhodes a similar theory arose. We argued that scapuls(?) were not constructed as the structure grew higher and instead a huge mound of dirt was introduced to the sides of the Colosus and various pieces taken up by workers and assembled. The mounded growing proportional to the structures height.

    I also argued that the mounds of dirt in each project must have consisted of some sort of previous construction to prevent the dirt from sliding off due to weight, earthquake or rain (whether it be inside or outside the perimeters). The Pantheon already had a natural barrier, but was it strong enough? I could never figure this out.

    My theory on the pyramids would be similar. Use of elephants, other animals and humans to haul massive amounts of stones and likewise sand (I think dirt was too important for egyptians to waste). Sand is not as firm as dirt, so maybe they used something else, or they reinforced it somehow (this I am not certain). As various layers were constructed, various levels of materials were added around the pyramids.

    No aliens.
     
  20. Jan 11, 2006 #19

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A version of "Occams' Razor" for this discussion would be -
    don't invoke aliens as a source of pyramid building until you've proven that humans could not do it.

    The reason is that you'd need to have evidence of aliens -
    I have to admit aliens would be fun. For a while. At least we could stop worrying about what we're doing to each other down here. And start worrying about what they're doing up there....

    You need to be careful about citing your sources. Always cite wherever you found something.
     
  21. Jan 13, 2006 #20
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Egyptian Pyramids
Loading...