He explained: “Under the current theories, to lay the two million stone blocks required the Egyptians would have to have laid a large block once every three minutes on long ramps.
I haven't heard a good explanation of how they got around this one.
Maybe the pyramids are millions of years older than previously believed. < /sarc >
In the 1980s, a French team (a different one :’) was given permission to investigate a void they found with very sensitive seismic equipment, by drilling through the wall. The found a sand-filled chamber, but that’s all they were allowed to do.
Three minutes? Obviously a shovel ready project.
He explained: “Under the current theories, to lay the two million stone blocks required the Egyptians would have to have laid a large block once every three minutes on long ramps.I haven't heard a good explanation of how they got around this one.
This rate of bricklaying is required to complete the job in 11 years, working 24/7. Regardless of whether the rubble theory is correct, it's not that difficult to achieve if you consider that more than one bricklayer and more than one stone carrying team was involved. The pyramid is large enough to support 100 such teams - and each laying team would use tens, if not hundreds, of stone delivery teams, so that the bricklayer at the pyramid always has stones to position and lay down. If each bricklayer needs 1 hour to place one stone, they needed only 20 bricklayers. This is not an unusual number; you can have that many working on a house today.
With regard to rubble, today it's probably easy enough to transport it on large mining trucks. But what would that be easier in ancient Egypt, delivering rubble (in baskets?) or pushing a single, self-contained block of stone? There was a considerable shortage of heavy trucks in Egypt. Transportation of a stone slab only requires pulling force (slaves, animals) and some rollers (trunks of trees.) The road would become flat enough on its own, after first 1,000 slabs are delivered.
Rubble also has tendency to settle. Today thick walls of brick buildings are usually hollow, and filled inside with light gravel, for stability and for thermal insulation. However that gravel has no load-carrying function. A pyramid would have to have an all-stone framework, with voids that one could fill; but that framework has to be very, very strong - perhaps stronger than the stone. Gravel alone would settle over centuries, and the pyramid would fall inward, or otherwise sag, with very obvious deformations inside and outside. This is not what is observed, as I understand - the structure appears to be very rigid. It may be that gravel comprises 50% of the pyramid, but not much more, given that the pyramid is still standing.
Shades of Sitchin, the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun, discovered in 2005, is 722 feet taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza. Radio carbon dating shows the pyramid to be at least 24,800 years old.
Professor Joseph Davidovits, mentioned several times on this thread, is involved in studying the pyramid.
Material Analysis shows that the structure is composed at least partially of man-made concrete.