Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

Warwick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I propose that the number of blocks is actually

> less than 2 million

I've seen credentialed Egyptologist pencil whip the number of stones down to little more than half a million by playing with math and supposition. Not one stone was pencil whipped up the side of the pyramid. They didn't "click and drag" like a computer game. The pyramid is real and is what it is.

If they used fewer blocks then reality dictates they were larger. Larger blocks are harder to drag uphill. Indeed the weight of an object is a measure of how hard it is to drag uphill. There is a perfect correlation between the size of the block and the number of stinky footed bumpkins required to drag it.

> I didn't extrapolate a full 20 years

We don't know how long it took to build. But everyone better figure it was only during the day and chiefly during the summer and fall.

> at 20 metres height 52% of the volume has been

> installed

Irrelevant. You might as well say that the pyramid has four visible sides or that it comes to a point. These are definitional characteristics of pyramids. They get smaller at the top.

Here are some definitions are relevant. The work required to lift something is its weight times its height times the reciprocal of the efficiency. The work required to lift a pyramid is its weight times one fourth its height times the reciprocal of the efficiency. Ramps have a very high (stupendously high) efficiency reciprocal. The total work to lift the stones could have been as much as twenty times greater if ramps had been used.

No matter what means was used to lift stones one at the top required more than fifty times as much work as one of comparable size at the bottom. It's simply irrelevant that the pyramid tapers because the work to lift them is closely correlated with the speed at which they could be put in place. Stones at the bottom are easy but try dragging one twenty meters up a ramp!!!

> Most of the critics constantly parse the number as

> if all the blocks are going to the top.

There may be some truth in this. It is a logical certainty that the rate at which they were placed decreased with height. Perhaps we all should be more careful to say the rate averaged one every 1 1/4 minutes (per my estimates), but that it was much higher near the start and much lower at the top. It may have varied from 15 sec to 250 sec over the course of the project. Finishing operations were far lower still.

> I am

> not a daunting achievement.

I'm suggesting it was not a daunting achievement. The real achievement was in the planning, science, technology, and execution.

Lifting the stones was exceedingly easy... ...at least in comparison to what Egyptologists believe.

-------------------------------------------------------

> I propose that the number of blocks is actually

> less than 2 million

I've seen credentialed Egyptologist pencil whip the number of stones down to little more than half a million by playing with math and supposition. Not one stone was pencil whipped up the side of the pyramid. They didn't "click and drag" like a computer game. The pyramid is real and is what it is.

If they used fewer blocks then reality dictates they were larger. Larger blocks are harder to drag uphill. Indeed the weight of an object is a measure of how hard it is to drag uphill. There is a perfect correlation between the size of the block and the number of stinky footed bumpkins required to drag it.

> I didn't extrapolate a full 20 years

We don't know how long it took to build. But everyone better figure it was only during the day and chiefly during the summer and fall.

> at 20 metres height 52% of the volume has been

> installed

Irrelevant. You might as well say that the pyramid has four visible sides or that it comes to a point. These are definitional characteristics of pyramids. They get smaller at the top.

Here are some definitions are relevant. The work required to lift something is its weight times its height times the reciprocal of the efficiency. The work required to lift a pyramid is its weight times one fourth its height times the reciprocal of the efficiency. Ramps have a very high (stupendously high) efficiency reciprocal. The total work to lift the stones could have been as much as twenty times greater if ramps had been used.

No matter what means was used to lift stones one at the top required more than fifty times as much work as one of comparable size at the bottom. It's simply irrelevant that the pyramid tapers because the work to lift them is closely correlated with the speed at which they could be put in place. Stones at the bottom are easy but try dragging one twenty meters up a ramp!!!

> Most of the critics constantly parse the number as

> if all the blocks are going to the top.

There may be some truth in this. It is a logical certainty that the rate at which they were placed decreased with height. Perhaps we all should be more careful to say the rate averaged one every 1 1/4 minutes (per my estimates), but that it was much higher near the start and much lower at the top. It may have varied from 15 sec to 250 sec over the course of the project. Finishing operations were far lower still.

> I am

**suggesting that this was**__NOT__> not a daunting achievement.

I'm suggesting it was not a daunting achievement. The real achievement was in the planning, science, technology, and execution.

Lifting the stones was exceedingly easy... ...at least in comparison to what Egyptologists believe.

Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.