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).

cladking Wrote:

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

> 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.

ROTFLMAO

and immediately after the words..."It is a logical"

Somebody make him stop!!

warwick

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

> 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.

ROTFLMAO

and immediately after the words..."It is a logical"

Somebody make him stop!!

warwick