> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > > >
> > These aren't simple shapes and every shape has
> > be pre designed in order to fit with it's
> > neighbour. Not possible by trial and error.
> I agree, but I'm not suggesting trial and error.
> I'm merely suggesting they had a few simple rules
> to govern how these were emplaced and the masons
> "made it up" on the fly while following these
> rules. The resultant had whatever properties the
> architect desired and the masons saved a great
> deal of work by using the shapes available.
Even so in order to achieve an interfit each individual block has to be independently designed. There are no simple rules. The "shape available" is irrelevant.
> I still believe the desired result was a region
> that resonated at essentially the same frequency
> as the p-wave of an earthquake. This was
> "sacrificial" stone that would collapse in a quake
> and absorb the energy thus protecting the mn-canal
Possibly, I like to focus on the physical evidence provided by the AP block work.
> > Someone thought it necessary, even if it were
> > mason on the job, he would have had to
> > design each individual block.
> One can prepare a job through designing it or
> simply follow a few simple rules that will
> necessarily lead to the desired result. The
> former is the way most things are built today with
> thousands of detailed blueprints and the latter is
> the way I cobble together building materials.
Incorrect there are no simple rules today or ever. Carve a multidimensional, multi angled shape and then carve an inter fitting shape that fits precisely without prior visual planning. A blueprint.
> If you don't believe this works then consider that
> Egyptology is essentially the science of studying
> changeless stinky footed bumpkins who dragged
> tombs up ramps. One can build on logic, or
> knowledge, or assumption. One can build using
> rules or intense detail.
> It's apparent to me that the Egyptians built on a
> great deal of knowledge using numerous rules that
> led to the desired result. Of course in aggregate
> these rules comprised something just as complex as
> any blueprint.
Where is the evidence, what were the rules that led to the desired result??
The only possible rules are those of three dimensional representation. A blueprint.
> > I don't know of any
> > other means than drawing as a planning tool.
> > a model has to be pre drawn.
> This is the way we think. We think linearly in
> one dimension. We must draw up detailed plans and
> we'd need to do this even if we could communicate
> detailed instructions to each worker because each
> worker thinks linearly as well.
I think three dimensionally. In order to communicate My three dimensional concepts I have to produce a drawing. Visual language.
> We might tell a worker "drag this stone up the
> ramp" but if they had used ramps in ancient Egypt
> they'd have said, "Frack (the god of friction)on
> stone will be exercised on the ramp by you". Of
> course there were many "gods" that could be
> invoked to say the same thing. They could even
> say it without an active "god" in the sentence.
> > I doubt it were designed by the work crew they
> > would have taken the path of least resistance
> > least work for themselves, which is of course
> > regular cuboid block work.
> They were given specific rules concerning balance
> points, number of sides, minimum length of side,
> etc, etc and had to work within the confines of
> these rules.
Yes it's called an "engineering drawing". No simple rules..
Please prove a verbal description of a polygonal form that can be used as a reference for the accurate fabrication of that form.
> > Verbal instruction is impossible to communicate
> > and resolve in complex three dimensional forms.
> > That's why we have drawings.
> > If a worker still didn't comprehend then a
> > > vulgar depiction (blueprint) was made for the
> > > specific aspect he didn't comprehend. For
> > > main part if anyone needed what we'd call a
> > proper
> > > blueprint then he was carving stone out of
> > > quarry and was considered incapable of
> > following
> > > direction.
> > As above, communicating these multiple, complex
> > intersecting angles by any means other than a
> > drawing is impossible.
> > There was no mindless work, no grunt
> > > work, on the pyramid. Each man had to
> > understand
> > > his place and function and how it tied in to
> > the
> > > overall job. There was some repetitive hard
> > work
> > > but very little and I would assume men cycled
> > > through this work rather than having the same
> > > individual doing the same task day in and day
> > > out.
> > >
> > > The concept that people slaved away to build
> > these
> > > and lift the stones is in our imagination and
> > > there is no evidence whatsoever it existed in
> > > reality. People (men, women, and children)
> > wanted
> > > to come here to work and there were a very
> > limited
> > > number of jobs for them.
> > What we see here is the result of craftsmen
> > accurately following a plan.
> > A very complex plan. There's no alternative.
> > image speaks for itself.
Can't be done without a drawing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09-Mar-17 16:49 by Jon Ellison.