> Neither will a geyser.
> And how much water would be needed to float a 50+
> ton stone? How large would the raft have to be to
> hold such tonnage?
"Geysers" didn't lift any stones. Rather the water from a geyser named "atum" was used in a linear funicular to lift the stones.
A funicular does as much work as the weight of the water times the distance it falls times the efficiency of the system. Since a linear funicular is so simple it can operate with a near 100% efficiency. In other words it would take only about 50.5 tons of water to lift a 50 ton stone.
Just as "uphill" requires a tremendous amount of work, "downhill" does a tremendous amount of work. Any water at 80' on the pyramid could lift nearly its weight in stones.
> Funiculars do not answer the problem of the moving
> the larger stones into place.
To some extent I agree but I'm not prepared to toss the funicular out with the waste water. Funiculars can operate in tandem and with various types of assist. For the main part large stones would have been moved downhill into their final position after being raised a little higher than necessary.
> They had the
> equipment to make extraordinary stone cuts but
> used basic primitive ropes and timbers? This is a
> contradiction not only in skill, but also in
> method and equipment.
The PT says they had water powered saws in the "Great Saw Palace". I don't know how they were designed.
> And there is nothing to show they had pulleys.
They didn't have to have pulleys to use funiculars. They merely needed to redirect a rope about 70 degrees. There are numerous ways to do this with or without a pulley. The device they used was called a "dm-sceptre". I'd wager this was a simple pulley but it might have been a rounded greased stone for all I know.
> should believe they had pulleys but not the wheel?
A pulley is a little simpler than a wheel.
The wheel was invented by 3800 BC and might be older.