Date: January 10, 2017 08:32PM
Steve Clayton Wrote:
> 4.6-ish degree causeway(s). As I recall, we took
> this all the way back to Abydos. They also had a
> supply of water from a higher source. Where did
> this knowledge came from?That may add to the
> Mystery. Hopefully one day, I will have time to
> round up all that info, and elaborate our findings
> at each Pyramid site.
> Hi Phil,
> An after thought... If all the Causeway's turn
> out to be 4.6-ish, wouldn't that lend credence to
> an earlier build time?
Well, it's certainly "supporting evidence" but I wouldn't call it a smoking gun of certainty. But it would certainly imply a common principle that needs to be reconciled. I mean, why would they need so many causeways at 4.6 degrees if not to fit the funicular formula?
Also, I'm thinking it might not have been so easy to choose a location to build such pyramid, especially if cladking is right about needing a carbonated geyser as an on site water source. The criteria for site selection would include:
- local geyser water source
- flat foundation plane for constructing pyramid base (with optional bedrock mound as an anchor?)
- distal end of causeway at river level
- gradual slope up from the river to allow a 4.6 degree causeway incline to pyramid base plane
- straight path from river up the causeway incline to the pyramid foundation
- feasible route for transporting the megaliths, human resource, supplies, and removal of waste rubble
- sufficient area around the base plane to support the pre-staging facility
Such siting is no simple matter. It's just as difficult to site a nuclear power plant today. And yet they managed to stud the lower Nile with a series of such megalithic construction, and only on the west bank!
If you recall, we looked at Saqqara, and at that time (?) they uncovered a large canal and harbor.
I will revisit our emails. Thet were in and around Sept. 2014. You can do a search on "Causeway" and/or Funicular. I could not get 4.6 to work.