> Not sure what very good ramp systems out there,
> that you are referring to? As in?
Ramp theories aren't really stupid by nature but the "stupidest" theorists tend to invent ramp theories. Many of these theories even neglect having a means for the workers to get down. Most of the ramp "theories" really aren't theories at all but just a matrix for doing calculations. As a rule when ramps theories are challenged they just morph into another shape and take on esheresque qualities. Some of my favorite though involve the ramp being integral to the side and the presumption it was built cladded and then smoothed on the way down. If this were possible it's an exceedingly attractive way to build and not entirely contradictory to the evidence. There are also also a couple of switch-back ramp proposals that look effective and afford more room for men to work. One even employs counterweights to move the stones up the ramps.
I may be biased but most of my favorites employ water. But very few theories can answer the really tough questions like "why don't we know how they were built", "where are stone draggers and quarrymen", "why is there so little evidence", and "how could they build a perfect pyramid with the tools they had".
I am certain the first baby step to get answers to all the questions is to recognize that these are step pyramids because they had no other means to build than to drag stones straight up the sides one step at a time. Eventually your funicular theory will probably gain traction.
> All other proposals suffer from one problem or
> another. As I have shown, in the Spiral proposal
> the last corner is reached after
> traveling 15.27'. All the groups of men on the
> first run, need to travel 689.03' before reaching
> their first 90 degree corner turn. The men at the
> top will stop all the other groups of men, down on
> the first run, 45 times... as they wait for that
> upper turn procedure. It is more difficult to
> get an object at rest, moving again, than it is to
> keep it moving, ie. Newton.
I'm sure you're right that other proposals all have fatal weaknesses. We can either propose aliens liked step pyramids underneath a smooth shell or that people built these and left the evidence they left BECAUSE of the means to build them.
> Can you image them grinding to a halt, only to be
> required to get their stone moving once again, 45
> times. 45 times! 689.03' (1st run div. by 15.27'
> (last run) = 45.123
No, I can't.
> It's absurd on the face of it. That would never
> even approach delivering a stone every 3
> minutes. A straight ramp, would require nearly
> as much material, as in the Pyramid itself, and
> would need to extend out into the Valley to
> acquire a workable grade.
Because of the terrain around G1 a straight ramp of sufficient width to deliver a capstone would have required nearly ten times the volume of the pyramid. The efficiency would have been no higher than ~3%.
> So until some other
> proposal can meet these conditions, by default, we
> are left with a straight up the face method. All
> the others fail.
> Ramps are Debunked! Can anyone, deny this any
I don't understand why there is no guidance from Egyptology. Modern thinking is leading them to obsolescence yet they remain in the background waiting for evidence that will never be released. Egyptology is going to become irrelevant to the study of the pyramids and their builders unless they get with the times. The data and theoretical foundation all existed months before I started in 2006 so it's been around 14 years now. Some might say they are stuck in 2005 but if you look closer you'll see they have their roots in the 1880's.
History may just leave Egyptology behind. They might think they can morph into linguistics but what kind of linguist didn't notice their favorite language breaks Zipf's Law?