Posted on 12/02/2002 4:30:56 PM PST by vannrox
Nah. I'm burned out on Egypt. The action is in South America.
Well it's got some SA stuff in there too. I thought it most enjoyable with respect to the 'conspiracy' of established scientific dogma parts. Definitely bookmarkeable.
I rest my case.
I would also take issue with a few points the articles raise. First of all, although modern practice is to break structures into small pieces before moving them, this is not universal. A 2800-ton lighthouse (Cape Hattaras) may only represent a fraction of the pyramid's total weight, but it's considerably larger than any of the blocks the Egyptians had to move. To be sure, the lighthouse was in fact moved by modern machinery, but some of the same principles used there to move a 280-ton lighthouse might have been usable by a large group of people to move a 28-ton rock.
In a different article, the author seems to suggest that each rock must have been dug out of the quarry, then transported, and then put in place, all before the next rock could be dug from the quarry. The author figures that since the rocks couldn't have been moved in the time frame that would imply, that they couldn't have been moved at all. I would think that if one recasts the goal in terms of taking years to move each block (but having many in transit at a time) one gets a somewhat more realistic picture.
Given certain conditions, extremely large objects can be moved with manual labor, albeit very slowly. Use of just about any of the simple machines will suffice, when combined with the "ratchet" principle: build a structure that will let you pry or otherwise lift your load by 1/8", then while it's lifted insert something to hold it in place. Then build a structure to lift it another 1/8", then insert something to hold it in place, etc. This procedure would be too long and boring to make good television, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
By the way, how do the Pyramids compare in altitute to the alleged quarries? A square block can roll (keeping its center of gravity at a constant height) if the ground before it is prepped properly.
I personally find the concrete theory to be the easiest one to believe, but recognize that there may be other ways for manual labor to achieve the results that so obviously exist.
Me too.....good work.
They probably read a book about it and thought they were instant experts. Starting a fire using a bow is hard to do and takes lots of hands-on practice and experience. I managed to do it exactly once, after hours of trying, and I had blisters that lasted for 3 weeks afterward and probably burned 1000 calories in the process.
A disposable lighter or even a book of matches is ever so much easier to put in a little belt emergency kit than all the junk you need to start a bow fire (the right wood (dry of course but not too dry), cordage, tinder, a base, a knife (to cut the notch you need to catch the coal), etc.
If you insist on roughing it and starting a fire using primitive means, use a rub stick (watch Tom Hanks in "Cast Away" use one), or even the lens from your eyeglasses or a discarded bottle.
Thanks for that. I try to learn something new every day and today- that was it. BTW, my dictionary (the Oxford Popular English) does not have a definition for it.
Sounds like the foreman on the ranch I hauled hay for when I was in high school. He could start a fire using a wet bunny rabbit and a harsh word - never could figure out how he got so good at it. I was always too lazy unskilled to do it quickly.
Since he carried it around all the time, my son said it was easier to carry flint and steel.
I have a magnesium bar with a flint rod on it that works great with my Swiss army knife in creating a spark. It hangs on my belt (along with a little emergency kit) when I go hiking.
There are times when it is best to know different methods. I was alway curious to try using a water drop as a lense method.
That's one I've heard of but never tried. Sure seems like it would work on a nice sunny day.
2 blocks per minute = 120 per hour. Formula for blocks per minute is # blocks per hour divided by 60; 31 or 32 blocks per hour is ~ .517 to .533 blocks per minute. Still impressive. I agree, a good read but if you're trying to convince the masses that are asses - attention to details like simple math are important. Thanks for an interesting post. I have always been amazed at how so many 'learned' men so strongly resist and sabotage new ideas, after all why would you want your name attached to a theory easily proven fallacious by later generations, ie 'The Earth is Flat' theoory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.