From: Dwayne (dwayne@pobox.com)
Date: Fri May 07 1999 - 01:36:26 MDT
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > The lower courses of the Temple of Jupiter at Baalbeck are, according to the
> > quotes I have seen, too massive to be moved using currently available
> > technology. Now, these may be quotes from engineers who have vested interests,
> > or they might be correct.
>
> With the horsepower of large bulldozers like a D-9, and since archaeologists have already demonstrated elevating and capping the trilons at Stonehenge with only a few hundred people and simple stone age leverage devices, we could easily build the pyramids over again. As I recall, one gentleman in California or Oregon built a copy of the pyramid, I think at 1/2 scale, in only a few months with a crane. It used stone blocks which were more rough cut than those in Egypt, but that was a cost saving measure, so he did not fit them to the same tolerance. Precision stone cutting is very expensive these days.
Hey Michael, is it a rhetorical technique of yours to not answer what someone has written, or did you misread what I wrote?
Feel free to read the paragraph directly above your quote and then comment on it.
> > I'd be interested in some comments from some actual engineers, because otherwise
> > we'll have yet another round of opinion-waving.
Such as your comment above.
> > I have also seen footage of engineers saying that it is technically impossible
> > to align a site as large as the Great Pyramid at Giza with the accuracy the
> > pyramid displays. There's more to it than just moving rocks about.
>
> That's crap. The Great Pyramid was aligned to the tolerance of the method they used for calculating true north.
Okay, maybe I didn't express myself properly.
What I meant was that the base of the pyramid is incredibly square, the edges are very straight (well, they are slightly curved, but the consistency is very accurate), etc. I saw a program on the Pyramids on TV, and they had a civil engineer who quoted alignment accuracy figures for major building projects, and as you know most modern buildings are reasonably square, have straight edges, etc., and he (this engineer has built buildings, so he knew what he was on about) said that he had no idea how to build a building which was as well aligned (erk, terminology fails me) as the Great Pyramid using modern building techniques.
Now, I'm quoting someone who was mean to be an expert. Please feel free to refute these comments using factual info, not opinions.
I'd personally like to think we can do better than they could, but I have yet to see any hard evidence to support this theory.
> The the surveying techniques we use today are virtually unchanged from those developed in those ancient times (with the exception of modern optics and lasers). In place of optics, peephole sights were used, which are so accurate that many snipers prefer peepholes to the modern optical scopes. Using a large scale (10' diameter) sundial, some knowledge of astronomy (of which the egyptians were without equal in that day and age), and a peephole sight mounted on a tripod, you could estimate true north with the same accuracy.
Okay, I didn't mean "aligned with north" I meant "square, even, very accurate corners/edges/angles whatever".
> > > Actually, we know exactly how most of the famous cases were built.
> > > Archaeologists have duplicated in great detail the methods used by Egyptians
> > > to build the pyramids and temples. They've also done a good job on the
> > > methods used in Greece, England and on Easter Island. In every case there
> > > is no magic or advanced technology involved - just old-fashioned
> > > craftsmanship and a massive amount of human labor.
> >
> > The vitrified forts in ireland?
>
> You mean the mounds? Pure human drudgery moving earth.
If you don't know what I am referring to, please refrain from commenting.
*Obviously* I would not bring up mounds of earth in such a discussion now, would I?
No, not mounds of earth, forts made of rock which has been heated up and fused into glass.
> Note that the Roman Republic was so adamant about the tolerances of their stone cutting that contractors only got paid 50% of a project cost until the project was still standing 40 years later.
Really? Do you have primary sources for this? This is *such* an interesting bit of info....
> Modern developers could not operate with such financial restrictions, nor do we want them to, since the average lifespan of a modern building is around 35 years. They typically either get torn down or destroyed in a disaster or war by then.
>
> Proof of the inadequacy of stone construction: The National Cathedral, the last stone construction building in the US, has taken over 70 years to complete.
I find it highly amusing that you say this after telling us that the life span of a modern building is typically 35 years :-)
Dwayne
--
mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne
"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and wirder."
---clae@pa.ausom.net.au
....return....to....the....source....
chairs are cheaper than aircraft:
http://snopes.simplenet.com/spoons/noose/balloon.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:41 MST