The pyramids I mentioned have been dated...
The
mortar on the outside of the pyramid has been dated. It's obvious that some of there dates are wrong, since that area hasn't had heavy rain fall at the time of these dates, yet there is evidence of water erosion.
The mortar is presumed to be from more recent repairs.
What does being one of the wonders of the world have to do with anything? It is irrelevant to how it was built.
Because they were seen as something wondrous. If they just seemed like a gothic cathedral, they wouldn't be one of the wonders of the world. it would just be another big monument.
The gothic cathedrals don't use those big ass stones, and we don't even know why they used them for the pyramid. Why not use smaller stones like in more modern times?
You said it was impossible to cut granite with copper tools. My example showed you could use a copper blade with sand to cut granite. That is the result. It can't be any clearer. You are wrong.
What I said is true. I said nothing about sand, and there is no evidence that such tools were used with sand. Were are those tools?
That's one theory on how they might have done it, but we don't know how it was done, because we weren't there. It's just conjecture.
I also doubt they could get such precision that way. Hand powered saws like to wander, and it's hard to cut a straight line in wood, never mind granite.
You want big? I'll give you big.
Oil Rig Photos - Comparision of Troll Platform & Eiffel Tower
Wikimedia Error
This thing was towed out to sea and installed in one piece!
And it wasn't cut from a single piece of limestone, was it? I think the Bolder Damn is bigger, right?
Do you remember the theory scientists had that the stones of the Great Pyramid weren't cut at all? At the time it was "proven" that they were a form of cement and were poured in place. The scientist even came up with the formula. Case closed they said.
Where is that theory now? 50 years from now they will have new theories, and none of them have been proven beyond a doubt yet.
We will never know exactly how it was done, unless we figure out how to look back in time. All these theories do is present possibilities of how it might have been done. And you can't prove a single one of them.
That oil rig proves otherwise. But you keep missing the point which is typically there is no good reason to build anything that big in one piece.
It wasn't cut from stone, and dragged by whatever means over sand and on rafts. It was done with large modern machines, that the Egyptians didn't have. Or am I missing something? Did we find the Great Earthmover of Cheops? King Tut's Back Hoe maybe?
Like I said those are rough cuts. No different from rough cuts at lumber yards. Finished pieces need to be worked down by planing to exact dimensions. Are you sure you are a woodworker?
Yep, and I build musical instruments, which have a pretty high level of precision, otherwise they don't work, and might as well be a chair. I also design the electronics and hand wind the pickups.
And what tools did they polish the granite with? They say they rubbed flat stones to make flat surfaces, I guess with sand in between. So how did the get the perfect curved surfaces? Also sand will leave a rough, scratched surface on granite.
If you do a little reading, you can see the stones they started to cut, and didn't finish, and they had round holes drilled in them. The cuts are pretty damn smooth. Not rough like Stonehenge.
And that big stone at Baalbek, that's also a rough cut, and look how perfectly straight the sides are. And square. It's a perfect rectangle. So it wasn't cut rough hewn at all, and then dressed to get the cuts smooth. But they did dress it after that stage.
How did they do it? Lets be honest and say we don't know. And for all those scientist that have the "answer", give them some overalls and some tools and have them do it. I mean really do it. Cut that 2,000 ton stone with hand tools and have it that smooth. Then drag the damn thing out of the hole and put it in place with the rest of the temple.
Anytime you design a working object, you have to make prototypes and test it. Often after using it for a while you discover that there is a flaw in the design that did not reveal itself at first. So what worked on paper and in theory often falls flat on its face in real life.
So sorry, but you are wrong. You are taking the word from Nova, and people who really don't know what they are saying, besides trying to prove their view on the subject. Any Egyptologist that still says the pyramids were tombs is an example. And they all do. These are educated people spewing nonsense, because that is the status quo. They don't want to rock the boat.
When that geologist said the Sphinx was way older than the Egyptologist said it was, they automatically dismissed his findings, even though they new little about geology.
Sure we do. What makes you think we don't?
What makes you think we do? Get a machinist square, and then go around your house, and check to see if the walls are 90° to each other. They wont be. Now go to a modern granite or stone building, and check that. Nope. Now get a precision straightedge and check the flatness of stone walls and see if any light is peeking under the straightedge. I'm sure it will be.
Why? Because it's close enough.
When I was a teenager we had a guy come and do some plumbing in our bathroom. He asked me who put the bathroom wall up behind the tub. I thought that was an odd question, and as a matter of fact my dad did. I told him so and he said "oh, I figured as much because it's square, and no professional framer ever bothers to do that!" Why? because there is no reason for that level of precision in a wall of a house.
The Egyptians like many ancient people who worked with stone used precise fitting for structural stability because they didn't use mortar and it would last longer. We don't try to build anything to last more than a 100 years or so. That is an intentional assumption of life cycle that is the nature of modern construction.
We have a lot of structures much older than 100 years in big cities around the world. There are 200+ year old houses right up the street from me.
We don't make stuff that lasts because it costs too much. We also don't use 2,000 ton cut stones. So why and how did they do that 4000 years ago?
We don't do it now because it's more difficult than its worth. So people without power tools and machines felt it was easier than we do now?
Precise fitting can be done with metal files or stone grinding on limestone or granite.
Anything
can be done. That's not the question. They still haven't explained how they drilled perfectly round holes in the granite. I saw some dopey explanation showing a bunch of oxen with a ropes around the "drill" going back and forth very slowly!
Dunn, who is a mechanical engineer, toolmaker and machinist, doesn't think it was done that way from looking at the marks left in the stone.
I can show you wood and stone fittings that are nearly invisible. Maybe you just don't know good builders. The Japanese are renown for wood joinery that is used on whole buildings with fit so perfect that no nails or glue are needed. Shaping of stone while much more difficult is perfectedly doable.
Wood cut with sharp steel tools is not the same as granite cut with copper and even with sand. None of these modern stone workers use these copper tools.
People can do amazing things. I'm not saying that humans didn't make the pyramids, just that they were not as described.
Ever heard of "proof of concept"? If you can prove it on one scale you have proven that it can be done. It's a very basic part of scientific process. That is why we do wind tunnel tests on smaller scale models of jets. It doesn't alway give us the exact performance characteristics but it is a reliable way to determine feasibility.
There's a flaw in that reasoning. In a wind tunnel, wind is wind. A scale model will behave the same as a full size model. Weight is irrelevant. But small stones weigh less than big stones. That increases the effort needed to move the big stones, in likely an exponential manner. You are working with larger stones and greater distances.
A scaled down system using a wooden tripod and a 100 pound stone as a test, wont be the same as a larger setup with a 2 ton stone. The wood wont get stronger as you scale it up, and the longer the legs on the tripod are the more flexible. The rope used wont get any stronger either.
Look at big modern cranes. They are rated for a certain load, along with the chains and stuff. What size crane is needed to lift a 70 tone stone? How about a 2,000 tone stone?
There are 2.3 million stones in the Great Pyramid. They are 2-30 tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons. They had to get those stones 480 feet in the air at the top.
And that is really the point. You are saying it's impossible and I'm saying it is possible.
No, its not impossible. We know that because the things were built. We just don't know how they were built, and I haven't seen an explanation yet that doesn't have holes in it.
I use to believe everything you believe in now about the pyramids. But I've seen the compelling demonstrations from scientists and architects that such things can be done.
Well two things here, whether you want to believe me or not, and I don't care, but both myself and my older brother were told not to believe this stuff about the pyramids when we were young. Who told us? We don't know. But it happened to both of us, and he is 12 years older than me, so I wasn't even born when he was told, and I new nothing of it.
But I grew up and was taught the usual stuff about thousands of slaves and stuff. But it didn't make sense. As I got older I realized that they don't even know what the thing was made for. It was not a tomb. That's obvious. But then what was it for? It's too complicated to be a tomb. That needs to be addressed. Forget how it was made. Why was it made in that manner? What are all the shafts and chambers for? There are many questions unanswered, and we probably will never know the answers.
And I'm sorry, but for all the scientists and architects that have a theory, others disagree. They don't agree on the age of the structures, even those strong evidence points to them being much older, which means that the dynasty that is presumed to have built them, didn't.
The Egyptians have no written record of building them, only of discovering them and repairing them. So who built them?
I'm prone to believe that there might have been technological advances in our past that we have forgotten. Maybe we were wiped out by some catastrophic event. Then we started over again, and we don't know anything about these structures.
Don't get me wrong I am in wonder of the things they accomplished. But it is unfair to them to think they needed help from Aliens or anti-gravity to build these amazing structures.
I never said aliens or anti-gravity, but I do not believe that the people we say that built them had anything to do with their construction, and that's based on pretty strong evidence IMO. Dunn never says aliens or anti gravity either, but he does show evidence for high tech tools, maybe even ultrasonic tools.
If you haven't, read the book. He's
very technical in it about machining methodology and such. He shows something and explains how we would do that today, and shows why the many theories are technically flawed. He came up with these ideas after going there and examining the structure.
