> I'm still not sure I even belong in this debate,
> I'm mostly concerned with what was built rather
> than how it was built, so I really haven't
> researched the subject properly and therefore
> something ignorant is due to pop out of my mouth
> at any second, but...
> Yes, I certainly think some thought needs to be
> given to whether stepped cores could have been
> built concurrent with the outer layers, or
> just slightly ahead of them, and perhaps
> more importantly, why they would have been
> constructed that and what might be advantageous
> about stepped cores or accretion layers from a
> structural point of view.
> I haven't read every post on in this thread let
> alone every post here on the subject, but you
> might be the only one I've seen talk about weight
> distribution and so forth concerning stepped
> I'm not sure I see any reason why the history of
> the Meidum pyramid can't be as Thanos suggests,
> but if we're talking about any pyramids that
> weren't converted from step pyramids to
> regular pyramids at a later date, it seems to me
> like the whole idea of stepped cores might
> contraindicate the ramp concept.
> All I can picture so far is you build a ramp
> that's eventually as high as the stepped core so
> you don't have to drag blocks straight up a 70*
> slope, then you tear it down so it isn't in the
> way of adding the outer layers, and then you
> build another one so you can get the outer
> blocks where they belong.
> If the challenge of it makes the use of ramps seem
> implausible (and it certainly does to me), perhaps
> the challenge of constructing a stepped core first
> makes them generally seem even more implausible.
> Maybe I'm just having a hard time picturing it all
> in general, but it really tries to seem to me like
> some important things might be mostly missing from
> the debate?
> Thank you for pointing in the right direction, at
> the very least.
Yes! This does seem to eliminate every single problem with the primitive knowledge and tools used by the builders and explain all the evidence. Yes, it's also likely that every single great pyramid didn't use exactly the same methods in equal measures.
But it does appear that in at least one case they may have begun building a large tower core on solid foundation pulling stones up on this core from above. They added a stepped core around this as they went while building the stepped outer pyramid around it that sat on no foundation other then a leveled surface. Stones for the tower core and the steps were pulled up from the step tops. The tower core was built in accretion layers and preceded step construction. Step tops were partially filled as they went to buttress the step sides and provide a destination for the casing stones being mined during the life of the project. The uppermost stones were pulled up from below as well and then the pyramids were finished from the top down. ie- the top step was completely finished before the step immediately below was finished. Casing stone was added from the bottom of each step going upward with the bottom course laid on stones designed to support them and then accept a narrow thin band of stone all the way around.
It appears that the tower core was intended principally to accept and distribute weight. Most of the bulk of the pyramid rested on it and most especially the bulk of the center of the pyramid that was heaviest. Much of the weight of the pyramid leaned against this core relieving forces on the bottom of the pyramid. Meidum partially collapsed during construction and then completely collapsed since and is now "stable". The first collapse may have been precipitated by poor engineering but the subsequent collapsing was probably earthquake. It appears the technique didn't work but even if I'm correct the sample size is too small and data too limited to draw conclusions like this.
It is undetermined at this time whether G1 has such a tower core or not but it would hardly be surprising. I believe the theory is sound and it does allow much lighter building of the steps and backing stone just as the gravimeteric scan indicates. The step tops are higher density chiefly because these need to be stronger to support a bottom row of casing stones and to minimize the danger of stones coming out. There are other activities at the step tops that would tend to cause higher density and these were working surfaces for years. I believe this would cause these to act as a delininiation between different density regions but chiefly these region are the result of different practices in filling of step tops.
I might have misinterpreted the high density region in G1 at ~365' on the NE side. Rather than being a storage area for water it might be the top of a tower core. This would suggest the highest unbalanced outward forces on the structure are about 200' up on the SE corner.
I believe there is and has been enough instrumentation and theory to solve how these were built in a very short time. All that is required is to apply modern science to the question. Everyone is fumbling around in the dark because someone put linguists in charge of the light switch.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10-Apr-20 14:22 by cladking.