> Which amounts to dragging them up a (relatively
> steep) inclined plane.
> So much for coherence.
Sure! Dragging them up the 70 degree step sides is technically using a "ramp".
But nobody ever strapped on a stone and walked straighgt up the side of the pyramid. This is a hackneyed romantic notion that is simply an absurdity. They didn't drag them to the base of the pyramid either probably. They probably used a type of funicular that employed the potential energy of weight on the plateau and on the pyramid to drag the stones to the base.
There were no teams of men dragging stones on ramps. They did not "mustta used ramps". They didn't use ramps at all as people envision them.
> The phrase “simple facts” here is empty
> rhetoric: they are not facts, they are not simple...
Semantics. The totality of the evidence says they did not use ramps. The fact that this evidence is complex enough to not be readily apparent is beside the point I'm making. The point is ramps are debunked based on the physical evidence.
Meanwhile the actual physical, cultural, and historical evidence as well as common sense all suggest stones were pulled straight up the side of five step pyramids one step at a time.
> and the last thing the Egyptians (or anyone else)
> would want to do in building anything is deny
> themselves mechanical advantage.
Mechanical advantage is a huge hindrance on jobs that require an extreme amount of work. Mechanical advantage ALWAYS and BY DEFINITION increases the total amount of work required. The difficulty of stacking 6 1/2 million tons of stone is getting the manpower in place to work. Mechanical advantage makes this more difficult. What is needed is room to work and this is what the tops of the five steps provided; ample room to work.
> None of which has anything to do with Femano
> arbitrarily redefining a word and then falsely
> claiming that others are redefining it when they
> use it in its standard sense.
I'll read it again but I saw no real problem with his post.