> You made a comment about Saqarra and mastabas
> leading to pyramids. Mastabas are rectangular and
> the core of Djoser (M1) is a square and is debated
> whether it was ever intended to be a mastaba.
> Stadelmann suggest this was the nucleus of a
> planned pyramid, I disagree, but regardless there
> is no doubt it was built first. These are the
> facts which as usual you dismiss them at your own
> peril. The tower core of Meidum sits on a square
> base which its similarity to Djoser M1 is not lost
> on Egyptologists either.
> The Meidum tower core, and the other stepped tower
> cores we see, are in principle nothing more than
> mastabas extended in height. Medium does have a
> simple core which was expanded in width and height
> by using accretion layers to make the tower form
> we see today.
The question is what is the purpose of this tower core. What is the purpose of the steps?
There isn't only a single means to build a pyramid and there isn't a single reason to build a monument, mnemonic, or monolith in the shape of a pyramid. Every single facet and characteristic of the pyramid including those linguists refuse to measure, has a reason or purpose for its existence. These things very rarely, if ever, owe their existence to religion or magic. You don't build flying buttresses for religious purposes or to please God, you build them to hold up a cathedral. You don't string wire across a river for magic, you do it to build a suspension bridge. The presupposition that mastabas had to reach the sky for proper ascension is sheer nonsense; they had a function and no amount of studying the incantation and book of the dead will answer the first or any other question about the nature of the function, reasons, or purposes of ANY feature of the pyramid. Such endeavors are PURE speculation based on appearances and similarities. They are Look and See Science.
I've provided perfectly good hypotheses about these. If I'm right then soon enough these hypotheses will simply be called "obvious deduction".
> You are literally just making up the idea a tower
> core is more difficult to build for no other
> reason than you want to crate a reason not to make
> it despite the clear evidence to the contrary. You
> ass talks and your fingers type. A tower core is
> not more difficult to build and in reality
> probably much easier.
Of course a tower core is harder to build for obvious reasons. ANY method of lifting stone is more difficult the higher you go and the steeper you make the sides. Tower cores are apparently more solid and heavier meaning there are more stones (more weight) per unit volume. Even if I'm right and no human ever lifted a stone the fact remains that pulleys and ropes wear out faster on a 70 degree corner than a 50 degree.
Is it really necessary to list every possible means to lift stones and then show that vertical walls make it harder?
> Sweet Christmas. And yet there it is:
...With the steps they used for ramps/ mounds/ battlements/ etc/ etc lying collapsed right where they had once helped lift the stones to build the tower core.
We're looking in all the wrong places for "ramps". They are right there in the gravimetric scan but people see their beliefs instead of what's right before their eyes. We now have science by consensus rather than experiment and those who form that same consensus aren't allowed the data from century old technology.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Apr-20 13:29 by cladking.