Solving the mystery of the Pyramid of Giza

[TommyJeffs]

Where is the great pyramid of Giza

@@

The Great Pyramid of Giza is located in Giza, a city situated on the west bank of the Nile River, just outside of Cairo, the capital of Egypt. The pyramid, also known as the Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops, is the largest and oldest of the three pyramids on the Giza Plateau. It was built during the reign of Pharaoh Khufu (also known as Cheops) in the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom, around 2580-2560 BCE.

@@

Was Giza a lush forest at the time

@@

No, Giza was not a lush forest during the time the pyramids were built. The area surrounding Giza and the Nile River valley has been a desert landscape for thousands of years. However, the Nile River provided a fertile and well-watered strip of land along its banks, which allowed for agriculture and the development of ancient Egyptian civilization. The climate during the time the pyramids were built was slightly wetter than it is today, but the Giza area was still predominantly desert and not a lush forest.

@@

Does sand turn to glass when it gets struck by lightning

@@

Yes, when lightning strikes sand, it can create a natural glass-like substance called fulgurite. Fulgurites are formed when the intense heat of a lightning strike (which can exceed 30,000 Kelvin or 53,540 Fahrenheit) fuses the sand particles together, resulting in a glassy, tube-like structure that follows the path of the lightning through the sand.

The color, shape, and size of fulgurites can vary depending on the composition of the sand, the intensity of the lightning, and the duration of the strike. They are typically found in areas with sandy soil or loose sand, such as beaches or deserts.

@@

Can you roll rocks the size of the blocks of stone on the pyramid of Giza on wooden logs to the place where the pyramid was made

@@

It is possible to move large stone blocks by rolling them on wooden logs, a method that has been suggested as one of the techniques used by the ancient Egyptians to transport the massive stones for the construction of the pyramids. This technique, known as “log rolling” or “roller transport,” involves placing a series of cylindrical wooden logs underneath the heavy stone block. As the block is pushed or pulled forward, the logs roll along the ground, reducing friction and making it easier to move the heavy load.

For the Great Pyramid of Giza, some of the limestone blocks weigh between 2 and 15 tons, while the granite blocks in the King’s Chamber can weigh up to 80 tons. It would have required a significant amount of labor and coordination to transport these massive stones using the log-rolling technique.

However, it should be noted that there is no definitive proof of the exact methods used by the ancient Egyptians to transport the stone blocks for the pyramids. Other theories include the use of sledges, levers, and ramps. The actual techniques employed may have been a combination of multiple methods, depending on the specific challenges faced during the construction process.

@@

Is it possible they used logs and poured sand under them to lift them up into place

@@

While there is no definitive evidence on how the ancient Egyptians lifted the massive stone blocks into place while constructing the pyramids, the theory you mentioned is one possibility that has been suggested by some researchers.

In this scenario, workers could have placed logs underneath the stone blocks and then poured sand around and under the logs. As the sand built up, the logs would be slowly lifted along with the stone blocks. Workers could continue adding sand and more logs to lift the blocks higher, eventually reaching the desired height for placement in the pyramid.

This method has some advantages, such as reducing the need for large ramps and allowing for more precise positioning of the stone blocks. However, it would still require a considerable amount of labor and coordination, as well as a sufficient supply of sand and logs.

It’s essential to note that the exact methods employed by the ancient Egyptians remain a subject of debate and ongoing research. There may have been a combination of techniques used, including ramps, levers, log rolling, and possibly the sand-lifting method you mentioned. More archaeological discoveries and research are needed to determine the precise methods used in constructing the pyramids.

@@

How deep were canals the Egyptians dug for any purpose

@@

The depth of canals dug by the ancient Egyptians varied depending on their intended purpose, location, and the specific period in which they were constructed. Canals were used for a variety of purposes, including irrigation, transportation, and flood control.

1. Irrigation canals: These canals were often relatively shallow, as their primary purpose was to divert water from the Nile to agricultural fields. *****They were usually a few feet deep and wide enough to allow water to flow efficiently and spread across the fields.
2. Transportation canals: For transportation and the movement of goods, including the large stone blocks used in the construction of monuments and temples, the canals needed to be deeper and wider to accommodate boats and barges. The depth of these canals could range from a few feet to over 10 feet, depending on the size of the vessels they were designed to carry and the local topography.
3. Flood control canals: To protect settlements from the annual Nile flood, ancient Egyptians also built canals for flood control. The depth and width of these canals varied based on the specific requirements of the area.

It’s important to note that the engineering skills and techniques used for constructing canals evolved over time, with some of the more sophisticated and deeper canals appearing later in Egyptian history. The depth and dimensions of any specific canal would depend on its purpose, the technological capabilities of the time, and the geographical features of the area.

@@

How deep would the Canal need to be to put a layer of logs under one stone to float it to Giza

@@

To float a stone block on a layer of logs in a canal, the depth of the canal would need to be sufficient to accommodate the submerged height of the logs and the draft of the floating structure, which includes the stone block and the logs.

The exact depth would depend on several factors, including the size and weight of the stone block, the diameter and buoyancy of the logs, and the configuration of the logs. Let’s consider a simplified scenario to give you a rough idea of the canal depth required:

1. Assume the stone block has a weight of 15 tons (13,607 kg).
2. Assume you are using wooden logs with a diameter of 1 foot (0.3 meters) and a length of 10 feet (3 meters).
3. Assume the logs are made of cedar, with a density of approximately 530 kg/m³.

In this example, you would need a certain number of logs to support the weight of the stone block. The buoyancy force provided by each log would need to equal or exceed the weight of the block divided by the number of logs. The buoyancy force can be calculated using the formula:

Buoyancy Force = Volume of submerged log x Density of water x Gravity

To estimate the depth of the canal, you would need to calculate the total buoyancy force provided by the logs and compare it to the weight of the stone block. If the logs are submerged to a certain depth, you can estimate the canal depth by adding the submerged depth of the logs, the height of the logs, and an additional clearance for the floating structure.

In practice, the exact depth would depend on factors such as the configuration of the logs, the water level in the canal, and the need for extra clearance for the floating structure to move freely. Additionally, the depth would need to account for variations in the canal bed and potential obstacles. It’s worth noting that floating heavy stone blocks on logs in a canal would be a complex and challenging task, and there is no definitive evidence that this method was used by the ancient Egyptians to transport stones for the construction of the pyramids.

@@

Roughly how deep would it need to be using your figures

@@

Using the provided figures, we can make a rough estimation of the depth required for the canal. Please note that this is a simplified calculation that doesn’t account for many practical considerations that would be necessary in reality.

1. Weight of the stone block: 15 tons (13,607 kg)
2. Diameter of the logs: 1 foot (0.3 meters)
3. Length of the logs: 10 feet (3 meters)
4. Density of cedar wood: 530 kg/m³
5. Density of water: 1,000 kg/m³
6. Gravity: 9.81 m/s²

First, we need to calculate the volume of a single log, which is the cross-sectional area multiplied by the length:

Volume = π * (diameter / 2)² * length = π * (0.3 / 2)² * 3 ≈ 0.212 m³

Next, we need to calculate the maximum buoyancy force that a single log can provide when fully submerged. This can be calculated using the formula:

Buoyancy Force = Volume of submerged log * Density of water * Gravity Buoyancy Force = 0.212 m³ * 1,000 kg/m³ * 9.81 m/s² ≈ 2,079 N

Now, we need to calculate the number of logs required to support the weight of the stone block. We’ll do this by dividing the weight of the stone block by the buoyancy force provided by a single log:

Number of logs = (Weight of stone block * Gravity) / Buoyancy Force per log Number of logs = (13,607 kg * 9.81 m/s²) / 2,079 N ≈ 64.5

Since we can’t have half a log, we’ll round up to 65 logs.

To estimate the canal depth, we need to consider the submerged depth of the logs and add an extra clearance for the floating structure to move freely. Since the logs have a diameter of 1 foot (0.3 meters), the logs would need to be fully submerged to provide the required buoyancy. Adding an additional clearance of, say, 0.3 meters for the floating structure, we can estimate that the canal depth should be at least:

Depth = Diameter of logs + Additional clearance = 0.3 m + 0.3 m = 0.6 meters (≈ 2 feet)

Again, this is a simplified calculation that doesn’t account for practical considerations such as variations in the canal bed, obstacles, water level fluctuations, or the actual configuration of the logs and stone block. It’s also important to note that there is no definitive evidence that this method was used by the ancient Egyptians to transport stones for the construction of the pyramids.

@@

So it would need to be 2 feet deep?

@@

Yes, according to the simplified calculation provided earlier, the canal would need to be at least 2 feet (0.6 meters) deep to fully submerge the logs and provide enough buoyancy to support the stone block while allowing for some additional clearance for the floating structure.

Please keep in mind that this estimation is based on a highly simplified model that does not account for many practical considerations that would be necessary in reality, such as variations in the canal bed, obstacles, water level fluctuations, or the actual configuration of the logs and stone block. Moreover, there is no definitive evidence that this method was used by the ancient Egyptians to transport stones for the construction of the pyramids.

@@

If they just put the logs on there and then left them there in a line until a flood came, they would likely arrive in Giza without the need for millions of slaves, only enough to help see them through?

@@

In theory, using logs to create a floating structure for transporting the stone blocks and relying on seasonal flooding to move them to Giza could be a possible approach. However, there would still be several challenges and logistical considerations with this method:

1. Control and navigation: Seasonal floods might not provide enough control and predictability for navigation, increasing the risk of losing or damaging the stone blocks during transport.
2. Timing and organization: The construction of the pyramids required a high level of organization and coordination, with the stones needed at specific times during the building process. Relying solely on natural flooding could make it difficult to ensure that the required stones arrived at the right time.
3. Placement and retrieval: Once the stones arrived at Giza, they would still need to be retrieved from the water, moved to the construction site, and lifted into place. This would require a considerable workforce, even if the number of workers needed for transportation might be reduced.
4. Stability: The stability of the floating structure would be critical to ensure the safe transport of the heavy stone blocks. This might require additional support and engineering to prevent the stones from shifting or falling during transport.

While relying on seasonal floods and floating structures might reduce the labor required for transportation, it is important to remember that constructing the pyramids still involved numerous other tasks, such as quarrying, shaping the stones, and placing them in the pyramid structure, which required a significant workforce. There is also no definitive evidence that this method was used by the ancient Egyptians for the transportation of stones during the construction of the pyramids.

@@

If they were tied together wouldn’t that create the needed stability?

@@

Tying the logs together could indeed improve the stability of the floating structure used for transporting the stone blocks. By securely fastening the logs to one another, they would be less likely to shift or separate under the weight of the stone, reducing the risk of the stone falling or becoming unstable during transport.

However, even with the logs tied together, there would still be challenges and logistical considerations associated with this method:

1. Tying the logs effectively: Ensuring the logs were securely tied together would require strong and durable materials, as well as skilled workers familiar with the necessary knots and techniques.
2. Managing the weight distribution: The placement of the stone blocks on the logs would need to be carefully planned to ensure even weight distribution and prevent the floating structure from becoming unstable or tipping over.
3. Navigating the waterways: Even with the logs tied together, navigating the waterways and controlling the movement of the floating structure would still require a considerable amount of labor and skill.
4. Timing and organization: As mentioned earlier, relying on seasonal floods to transport the stones might not provide the necessary control over timing and organization for the pyramid construction process.

While tying the logs together could improve the stability of the floating structure, the challenges and logistical considerations mentioned earlier would still need to be addressed. Moreover, there is no definitive evidence that this method was used by the ancient Egyptians for the transportation of stones during the construction of the pyramids.

@@

So the canals dug by the Egyptians were a minimum of 2 feet deep?

@@

The depth of canals dug by the ancient Egyptians varied depending on their purpose, location, and the specific period in which they were constructed. It is not accurate to say that all canals were a minimum of 2 feet deep. As mentioned earlier, canals were used for irrigation, transportation, and flood control, and their depth depended on the requirements for each purpose.

Irrigation canals were generally shallow, often only a few feet deep, as their primary purpose was to divert water from the Nile to agricultural fields. Transportation canals, on the other hand, needed to be deeper and wider to accommodate boats and barges. These canals could range from a few feet to over 10 feet deep, depending on the size of the vessels they were designed to carry and the local topography.

Flood control canals were constructed to protect settlements from the annual Nile flood, and their depth varied based on the specific requirements of the area.

It is important to note that the 2 feet depth previously mentioned was a rough estimation based on a hypothetical scenario for floating stone blocks on logs in a canal. This depth should not be generalized for all canals dug by the ancient Egyptians. The actual depth of canals would depend on the purpose they served, the technological capabilities of the time, and the geographical features of the area.

@@

Yea but it’s pretty wild that those figures are so similar huh

@@

It is indeed an interesting coincidence that the depth estimation for the hypothetical scenario of floating stone blocks on logs in a canal (2 feet deep) is similar to the depth of some ancient Egyptian canals used for irrigation and transportation. However, it is essential to remember that these figures are based on a simplified calculation and a specific set of assumptions.

The actual depth of canals in ancient Egypt would have varied depending on their purpose, location, and the period in which they were constructed. Additionally, the exact methods used by the ancient Egyptians for transporting stones during the construction of the pyramids remain a subject of ongoing research and debate. While the similarity between these figures is intriguing, it should not be taken as evidence for any particular method or technique used in the construction of the pyramids.

@@

Was there a giant city near the pyramid site

@@

Yes, there was a substantial settlement near the Giza pyramid complex during the time the pyramids were built. The city, known as the “Lost City of the Pyramid Builders” or the “Workers’ Village,” was located about 1,300 feet (400 meters) south of the Sphinx. This settlement is believed to have housed the workers who constructed the pyramids, as well as their families and support staff.

Excavations at the site have revealed a well-planned city with streets, houses, and communal spaces. The inhabitants of the city likely included skilled laborers, such as stonemasons and carpenters, as well as less skilled laborers, support staff, and administrators. The city was also home to bakeries, breweries, and other facilities necessary to sustain the large population of workers.

The discovery of the Workers’ Village has provided valuable insights into the lives of the people who built the pyramids and has debunked some misconceptions about the workforce being composed solely of slaves. Evidence from the site suggests that the workers were well-fed and cared for, and that they took pride in their work, often leaving graffiti on the stones they quarried.

In addition to the Workers’ Village, the ancient city of Memphis, which served as the capital of Egypt during the Old Kingdom when the Giza pyramids were built, was located about 13 miles (20 kilometers) south of the Giza plateau. Memphis was a major cultural, religious, and political center in ancient Egypt and played a significant role in the administration and planning of the pyramid construction projects.

@@

Stonemasons work with stone and carpenters work with wood right? We’re carpenters sophisticated with the strength of wood and sanding woox

@@

Yes, stonemasons and carpenters are specialized tradespeople who work primarily with stone and wood, respectively. In ancient Egypt, both stonemasons and carpenters were skilled workers, and their expertise was crucial for various construction projects, including the building of temples, palaces, and monumental structures like the pyramids.

Carpenters in ancient Egypt would have been well-versed in the properties and strengths of the available wood species. They would have known how to choose the appropriate wood for different applications, taking into consideration factors such as strength, weight, durability, and resistance to decay.

Wood was a relatively scarce resource in ancient Egypt, as the native trees, such as the Acacia, Tamarisk, and Sycamore Fig, provided limited quantities of timber. Consequently, much of the wood used in construction and carpentry was imported from regions such as Lebanon, which had vast forests of cedar trees. The scarcity of wood made it a valuable commodity, and the expertise of ancient Egyptian carpenters was essential for maximizing its use and value.

Carpenters in ancient Egypt would have also been skilled in various woodworking techniques, such as sanding, cutting, joining, and finishing. They would have used a range of hand tools, including saws, chisels, hammers, and adzes, to shape and work the wood. Sanding would have been an essential technique for smoothing and finishing wooden surfaces, and carpenters would have used materials like sand, crushed stone, or pumice to create smooth surfaces.

In summary, carpenters in ancient Egypt would have been sophisticated in their understanding of wood properties, strengths, and woodworking techniques, including sanding. Their skills and knowledge were essential for constructing and maintaining the wooden structures and objects that played a vital role in ancient Egyptian society.

[anon67758439]

Aw man, I was really hoping it would be aliens…