> Also, you need to justify that
The masons of that time usually made mastaba sides and other steep walls at 70 to 72 degrees for stability. I'm merely assuming the five 81' 3" steps of G1 which show up on the gravimtric scan are similar. If they could make them steeper they would have but the steeper they are the more fragile they are.
> If they were dragging things up a slope anyway,
> then reducing that slope would be a natural step
> to take.
No. Not necessarily.
Indeed, the shallower the slope the more inefficient it is because total friction increases. It is zero total friction at 90 degrees and it is infinite at 0 degrees. It is very high at 8 degrees and extremely low at 70 degrees.
If they had a perfect 70 degree side on the step that required no effort to build then why expend effort to make it less efficient? Ever consider a job in Congress?
> You were there? I see nothing less which would
> justify so plonking an assertion.
Ramps are debunked and this can't be changed with semantics. There is an extremely low probability for the use of ramps and I choose to express this improbability as "they did not drag stones up ramps".
> No dragging stones on ramps—but dragging them up
> 70 degree slopes, yes.
Again, semantics are irrelevant. If anyone wants to say the evidence suggests they pulled the stones straight up on 70 degree ramps I won't quibble the words.
> And without semantics, your words amount to . . .
I'm asking you to look beyond the words to the meaning, to the idea I'm trying to express. Semantics and word choice are irrelevant to the concept.
> Yeah, common sense, right.
Common sense insists they used the simplest, least complicated, and most efficient means to lift stones as evidenced by the largest public works project in human history. This means ramps are illogical and fly in the face of common sense.
> Seems to me that you’re doing what you
> constantly accuse others of doing: treating the
> ancient Egyptians as bumpkins, who did things
> which make no sense.
> What fools people are to make use of it,
> then—and yet somehow they do, to make things
> doable. Total amount of work is not always an
> overriding consideration.
When you get a new engine put in your car the cost of lifting it up is incidental.
Lifting isn't incidental when you're using primitive technology in a primitive economy to lift 6 1/2 million tons to an average of 150'.