> Ori wrote:,
> >And regarding the "wheel", they had the potters
> wheel but not a pulley and wheeled vehicle? And it
> took them 1000 years to evolve that potters wheel
> from being hand >driven to being foot driven? No
> inscription or painting of any pulleys or wheeled
> Hi Ori,
> The fact that no inscriptions show a pulley, or
> anything for that matter, is only the lack of a
> wall drawing depicting it. I have seen no drawings
> of a ancient society either. This does not mean,
> that the Giza Pyramids were not built 12, 000
> years ago. For all I know, they were. I am only
> looking at a build site, irregardless of the build
> date. I will leave that portion up to you and
> others to solve. In saying that, you have added
> much to revealing how a Funicular was used in the
Steve, I love your funicular model. It answers a lot fo questions quite well where traditionalists have failed to have anywhere near that much credible insight to these basic issues.
So please don't consider any of my remarks to in any way be a criticism of your work. Whether you and I agree or not regarding the timing of the construction, i believe your model has exposed tremendously valuable data regarding the relatively consistent causeway angle, it all but eliminates the need to invoke massive construction ramps. It eliminates the need to invoke tends of thousands of workers devoting an enormous percent of their lives in a non-productive, economy draining, and yet extremely high technology (for the Dynastics, at least) engineering. If those pyramids were in fact built by earlthy organisms using known physical materials, I beleive the concept of the funicular is by far the best approach to this problem.
Whether the it was water, wood, and rope, or other more advanced materials is immaterial to the basic model. The fundamental concept of a "funicular" is transferable across a broad spectrum of cultural development. But it becomes quickly problematic when we consider all the other aspects of the design and composition of those monuments.
> If Cladking mixes in ancient readings, I am fine
> with that, Though, I have no skill in that regard,
> and feel the Pyramid construction can be told in
> English, using engineering principles. It's
> Science. For me, I wanted to learn Sketch. and
> building the Pyramids were of interest to me since
> my early 20's.
It's still not clear to me whether the PTs were written by the culture that originally achieved all that construction vs. one or more subsequent cultures that took the verbal legends passed on to each subsequent generation and attempted to interpret them within their own contemporaneous context which cladking is attempting to reverse engineer back to the original builders, and who then scribed it into the construction they found there that was already ancient in their time.
> Audrey is someone taking her time to question the
> scenario. That is good, the scenario needs
> individuals who will take their time to comment.
> Many objections can be overcome by having a better
> understanding of engineering principals. My
> drawings are to size, meaning that when you see an
> item in my drawings, they have been rigorously
> scrutinized and held to engineering principals.
> The Funicular boats were sized to the weight.
> Understanding that the Causeway are incline
> Plains, and how that effects the pull, is lost on
> most people. The Boat's back ends can be extended
> to suite the amount of buoyancy. Plus, sized to
> offset their weight with water. At this juncture,
> maybe a Google search concerning "simple machines"
> is in order.
It's a very provative model alright.
> A Funicular system, is the only scenario that can
> move that many stone in 20 -25 years. It's
> basically a conveyor belt. You only need water at
> the top of the Causeway, to pull stones up the
> face of the Pyramid (Khafrey) and onto. The
> Causeway is 1700 ft. and the Pyramid face
> presently shown in my build scenarios, is 125 ft.
> The system is in balance, and so adding a gallon
> on water on one side, could in theory, start the
> system running again. Men with ropes tied to a
> vessel, walking down the Causeway could and easily
> control the distance and rate of travel.
> Equilibrium. 17 boats on one side with stone, and
> ? 17-18 boats filled with water on the other side
> moves stones.
And we really don't now with certainty what the original structure was of those causeways. There are so many enigmas and inconsistencies between them. Were they multiple levels? Were they covered? Might they have had much more stonework that was systematically pilfered by the locals? Are we only seeing the bones that remain after the meat has been picked off?
> In this wall drawing, the women are making slings,
> and included is a boat carrying stones. I see no
I see such graphic portrayals as not quite making the sense we hoped to find in such imagery, and that they don't really portray a process that actually happened. Rather, they seem to portray what the Dynastics thought might account for the stone objects and structures they saw all around them. We see the same kinds of "almost but not quite" graphics in Rekhmire, Djehutihotep, Unas (also in the text of Debhen). Some people claim the portrayals are deliberately intended to be symbolic, or stylized artistic license, or metaphorical. But I just think another possibility is that they are musings of Dynastic engineers and local dignitaries, merchants, etc., trying to propose what might account for the artifacts they observed there but which they were not responsible for creating, and sometimes using that as their "audition" to get their ticket to ride the ferry into the afterlife.
> Also, we have been educated that a pulley
> requires a center axle. All the benefits (less
> friction) contained in that design, can be
> achieved by simply placing a rope over a tree
> limb. You pull on one end and the other end pulls
> something up. A 1 to 1 ratio. If you now anchor
> one end of that rope, and place the center section
> of the rope, loop over the limb and wrapped around
> ( say to antlers of a deer) you will quickly
> discover by pulling on the other end of the rope,
> you now have a 2 to 1 lift ratio. The deer is half
> the weight. I do not see that in any drawings,
> though likely in use, more than 12,000 years ago.
> That kind of technology, would be handed down from
> Father to Sons, throughout history.
While it's certailny possible that a father-to-son scenario is possible for isolated families and small tribes hunting for their next meail, but not for such massive construction projects. In the latter case, we see a great deal of quantitative science including math, geometry, physics, chemistry, geology, material science, tool techology, stonework, transportaion, nautical technology, logistics, project planning, etc., all of which go way beyond a mere father-to-son transfer of information.
> any usage in the Funicular section, though at the
> face of the Pyramid, I can see how to use it (over
> and over) to lift stones with half the amount of
> effort, while traveling upward at twice the rate.
If only that was portrayed in what otherwise is a huge body of documentation from that period, from pharaonic decrees down to contracts for trading beans, and even grafitti that includes name calling and insults from the local bully.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31-Mar-18 15:33 by Origyptian.