cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

[. . .]

> 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.

So, you’re assuming that the task was one of building a step pyramid—and that building a step pyramid was the entirety of the task, with nothing else needing explaining.

Would you now like to explain how the topmost stones of a true pyramid were raised, within the constraints of your “no ramps allowed” stipulation?

How the stones converting the posited stepped core into a true pyramid were raised?

> > 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.

And again, reducing friction to a minimum is not necessarily an overriding consideration, if the low-friction or no-friction solution is infeasible. There are the larger stones (roofing blocks, including the granite ones) to explain—and, again, all of the ones which are not part of the posited stepped core.

> 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?

Congress is not in my country.

> > 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. [. . .]

> Again, semantics are irrelevant. [. . .]

> > And without semantics, your words amount to . . . ?
>
> I'm asking you to look beyond the words to the
> meaning, [. . .]

So much for coherence again.

> > 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.

No, common sense insists that they did what was doable.

> > 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.
>
> ?

It remains unclear to me (for one) that your proposal is other than impractical and impracticable.

> > 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'.

If proposing that stones were raised by essentially a straight lift, perhaps you would like to explain how they were secured, without any sign of lewises being used—and what was used to stop them scraping that nice, dressed Tura.

Also, it might help if you worked through your ideas (covering inter alia the points mentioned above) and presented them pictorially.

M.