> Steve Clayton Wrote:
> > Warwick Wrote:
> > -----
> > > "What numbers do you need? I have all of
> > > Cladking is only supporting my concept."
> > >
> > > Hans' point is blatantly obvious to anyone
> > has
> > > been paying attention.
> > >
> > > Cladking is ONLY supporting your concept
> > because
> > > it supports his obsession about Ramps.
> > >
> > > In 15years he is yet to present his MATHS.
> > >
> > > If you are willing to overlook that just to
> > count
> > > his support.....
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't that special
> > >
> > >
> > > Warwick
> > Hi Warwick,
> > Ref: Conjecture.
> > 15 years? Cladking and I have our differences.
> > can't speak for everyone here on the board, nor
> > should I need too. In some ways, he undermines
> > concept or realizations. I find many just
> > interchange with him as entertainment. He
> > believe, or once did, in Geysers. Maybe there
> > I have no idea. That seems to upset many, why?
> > not sure of that either? None of us are going
> > be 100% accurate. It's conjecture, and should
> > treated as such. I am not counting his support.
> > More like enduring it. He and I just agree
> > beyond several successive layers become more
> > more unrealistic. I do give him credit for
> > understanding that, as many others do as well.
> > problem I see with ramps is, the extra amount
> > work and materials required to build and
> > them. The higher you go, the more pronounced
> > issues become. Also, the more men and longer it
> > takes to reach the top. I have tried, to make
> > scenario work mathematically, and have failed
> > every attempt. If they had 100 years to build
> > Pyramid, that would help.
> > I feel you have done your homework on many of
> > subjects discussed here. I don't tell you often
> > enough, though I enjoy your post and
> > Though it may not seem like it, from time to
> > You have changed my mind on some issues. My
> > is a work in progress... New discoveries can
> > change many preconceived ideas, and usually
> > Keep up the good work.
> I realize you are working separately from Cladking
> (good idea). Excellent
> I've always held they may have used four separate
> methods - direct drag for the first tier of
> course, classic ramps for the first quarter then a
> switch to external but smaller ramps on steps, and
> finally using some form of lifting machines at the
> higher tiers. A counter weight system? Possible,
> plausible but how probable? That I hope is what
> you can show us. Cladking just didn't have the
> knowledge to make the attempt.
> We look forward to your solutions.
Some may be looking forward to my solutions. I don't think we can include Warwick on the list. He has always rebutted this approach, even when it makes him look foolish.
A Counter Balance is very simple. The Egyptians certainly understood it's principle, as it is shown in numerous wall relief. They used it as a weighing scale. The Funicular is nothing more, than the same principle laided down on it's side. The same principle still applies. More weight on one side, will cause the other side to move upward, and/or vice versa. All the other systems require thousands of men. The Funicular system would require less than 100 men. Additionally, they would not be doing any hard labor. That's not to say, they didn't on occasion. Why would anyone work hard, when it is not required. By saying they pulled stones around, is to cast them into a bad light. On one hand, Egyptologist point to how brilliant they were in mathematics and ability, and then on the other hand, how dumb they were, and could only pull stones around in a mindless fashion. I am sure they pulled statues and obelisks when needed. Though, unless you are willing to say some unknown race build the Pyramids, which could be possible. Or, they had the luxury to accomplish the feat in 100 years, no one can show me how that time frame can be accomplished.
This is where they all fail, and then turn a blind eye, and continue on with this preposterous myth of ramps. You would think someone in the field and art of Egyptology, would attempt this, as in do the math. I mean, if you can't prove it as a feasible possibility, why in the world would you continue to except some Hollywood portrayal. How brainwashed and stupid do you need to be, to continue to propagate that nonsense? Ask yourself, have you seen NOVA actually pull a 2.5 ton stone up a 6-7 degree grade? Their Pyramid exercise used a grade of approx. 2 degrees. Now, why was that? How far do you think, a wooden sled being dragged over stone, would last? Does anyone really believe it would make the journey to the top, and be reusable?
2,500 lbs. would grind that wood sled to pulp, in short order, with or without a lubricant.