> Depending on the grade, and a lubricated track,
> they may have found the stone leaving them behind,
> with them running after it. :) Seriously, have you
> done survey, and understand what grades were
It simply doesn't make sense to drag the stones down to the river and then have to lift them twice as high from there.
> What ramp up and out of the quarries are you
> talking about? As they dug deeper, they created
> their own cliff to overcome. Wood tracks are
> repositionable, while ramps are not.
Reisner described one EXACTLY WHERE I PREDICTED there was a ramp. It has a steady grade from 10' south of the causeway to the Sphinx Quarry. It is exactly N/ S and positioned between the so called queens pyramids and the western most mastabas in the cemetery.
How they prepared to surface for sleds with stones is unknown. It appears they used proto-pulleys to couple them together so they would train properly. They moved exactly a "bowshot" at a time as the counterweight fell down the cliff face. They would have reduced friction on this surface as much as practicable but my guess is they just laid down a row of turah limestone and greased it. The stones were later converted into casing stone. A great deal of such stone was used in the area for temporary purposes so the Turah Mines could operate at a steady pace for thirty years. Only superstitious Supermen could mine and ship 100,000 tons of finished stone in a single year. It would be foolhardy to try to operate an economy the way Egyptologists suggest.
Everything including the primitive economy had to operate like a well oiled machine for thirty years to build these. They didn't have hundreds of thousands of men to drag stones hither and yon. EVERYTHING had to be done in a common sense and efficient way with no exceptions. Remember this was their "space race" and they had over two centuries to hone their craft of pyramid construction.
> Less men were needed, vs. what would be required
> pulling stones uphill. Would you prefer to strain
> and break you back, because the distance was a
> little further. As shown in Kufu's quarry, it was
> a 50/50 distance. Taking the stones downhill,
> loading them on barges, and moving them up the
> Causeway was prefered.
They would never waste effort and moving stones through Seattle just to get to the funicular was out of the question. If they had done this then why is there a "ramp" that leads due north to the causeway?
> I am not sure that even
> took more time. Additionally, if they did have
> water and used a Funicular system, then why not us
I believe they inverted the stones as they were being transferred to the causeway for final inspection, smoothing, and weighing.
> Question? Is it easier to go down hill pulling a
> weight behind you, or uphill? I question, am I
> really talking with Cladking? I thought you were
> the one who detested smelly bumpken footed, stone
> draggers. :) :)
Downhill is fine. You're suggesting they went downhill for no reason and then had to take them TWICE AS FAR UPHILL.
This is most highly improbable.
If they could operate the causeway as a funicular then why not other lines?