> So you're saying the water from geysers was
> channeled through canals to the causeway which
> then flowed uphill to the pyramid?
I believe it was caught at the top of its trajectory at 80' and they built the pyramid around this.
> And how do you get a linear funicular over 200' up
> a pyramid?
The water all fell in the funicular from 80'. They simply used the work at higher levels using long ropes draped across the pyramid.
> that's what you're saying, you have to make the
> water rise so that it falls to the level of the
> king's chamber thereby lifting the 50 ton
50 tons of water falls from 80' to lift the stone to 80'. The pyramid is built in steps so the stone is now sitting on the top of the first step. You simply drape the rope across the second step and lift the stone from 80' to 160' as the counterweight again falls from 80' to 0'. All the stones had to be lifted one step at a time. Funiculars are virtually 100% efficient and require no extensive infrastructure.
> Egyptologists say the causeways were enclosed. Why
> have enclosed funiculars? Doesn't make sense.
There is no solid evidence that any of the causeways on any great pyramid was enclosed. These causeways are in utter ruin. If they were enclosed as is a possibility then there was probably no funicular operating on the causeways.
> So you're going to redirect a rope around a pole
> or stone? You should probably use stone because
> you've got 50 tons at the end of those...how many
They almost certainly used a single rope of about 5" across the dm-sceptre but they employed a chain across the pyramid top. Ropes were slings in 100' lengths. None of the joints went over either side of the pyramid because the "dm-sceptres" would have damaged them. ...and vive versa.
> Better be a round polished stone or your ropes
> will shred. If you've figured this much out,
> you're more than halfway to having a pulley. If
> they didn't have pulleys, you're saying they were
> smart enough to 'redirect' the ropes, but not
> smart enough to go one step further and come up
> with a pulley.
I believe dm-sceptres were 200lb bronze pulleys.
G1 required about 45 times as much lifting as Djoser's Pyramid (the first great pyramid). Think about this a moment. Obviously they made stunning improvements in their building techniques and efficiency in less than a couple centuries. I believe G1 is more than merely a culmination of these improvements but represents just about the most that can be done using the tools they had. They turned water seeping, bubbling, and squirting out of the ben ben on the primeval mound into a 6 1/2 million ton pyramid. Their achievement is astounding and is a testament to ancient science, Ancient Language, and human ingenuity.
> And if they had pulleys, they
> weren't smart enough to make that small step to a
> wheel. Yet they engineered the relieving chambers,
> the grand gallery and passageways. What's wrong
> with that picture?
They didn't require a wheel for pyramid construction. There is almost no friction on a greased skid going up a 70 degree angle so no wheel was necessary. They had ample water to drag stones to the pyramid site so no wheel necessary.
Necessity is the only mother of invention and this goes twice over with their primitive science. They didn't think like we do.
> > A pulley is a little simpler than a wheel.
All I mean by this is that by attaching a "pulley" to an object the pulley becomes a wheel and that the object becomes mobile and in a sense an extension of the wheel. This is more complex and you also need a smoothed surface on which to use this new device. None of this applies to a pulley.
This really isn't a matter of who's smart enough for what so much as who needs what.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03-Mar-18 15:00 by cladking.