Slashdot Mirror


Architect Claims to Solve Pyramid Secret

Alreadybutnotyet writes "A French architect claimed Friday to have uncovered the mystery about how Egypt's Great Pyramid of Khufu was built — with use of a spiral ramp to hoist huge stone blocks into place. The construction of the Great Pyramid 4,500 years ago by Khufu, a ruler also known as Cheops, has long befuddled scientists as to how its 3 million stone blocks weighing 2.5 tons each were lifted into place. 'The most widespread theory had been that an outer ramp had been used by the Egyptians, who left few traces to help archeologists and other scientists decode the secret to the construction. Houdin said he had taken into account the copper and stone tools available at the time, the granite and limestone blocks, the location of the pyramid and the strength and knowledge of the workers.'"

209 comments

  1. History Channel by StarWreck · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is old news to me. I saw the "Spiral Ramp" idea on either the History Channel or The Discovery Channel at least a couple years ago. The show even had a CGI model of the spiral ramp.

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    1. Re:History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      rtfa.

      According to his theory - shown in a computer model available at http://www.3ds.com/khufu - the builders put up an outer ramp for the first 140 feet, then constructed an inner ramp in a corkscrew shape to complete the 450-foot structure.
    2. Re:History Channel by Baby+Duck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you go to the site, you'll see where he debunks previous ideas. One of those ideas is an *external* spiral ramp. But it would be twice the volume (I think...watch the movie for the exact multiplier) of the pyramid itself, which is infeasible for a 20 year project and harder to leave no evidence of after dismantling.

      This guy's internal spiral ramp theory uses known tunnels that allow the pyramid to be built inside out while helping to keep laborers out of the sun.

      He doesn't simply CGI all of this. He computer models it with physics to show how it could have been done with materials present for the time, and a reasonable workforce size, inside of 20 years.

      --

      "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    3. Re:History Channel by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Much older than that. There was a Nova "This Old Pyramid" special about ten or fifteen years ago that talked bout the spiral ramp pyramid building method. There have been reasonable explanations of why this was probably not the method used for just as many years, too.

    4. Re:History Channel by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought the same thing, then read the FA and realized he's proposing that they built a spiral ramp INSIDE the pyramid, instead of outside. Advantages being keeping the workers out of the sun, and it could have been much smaller. It's certainly the first time I see someone proposing an interior ramp.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    5. Re:History Channel by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. The one on Discovery wasn't a huge, gently sloping mound, it used the limestone to create a mortar and wound around the pyramid. They even duplicated the mixture and had men haul a rock up it.

    6. Re:History Channel by Seumas · · Score: 1, Informative

      Right, but the interior-ramp method isn't exactly solving the secret of the pyramid. It's a minor (but important) tweak on a pre-existing theory. The article (at least the title in the article that is linked to) is rather hyperbolic. And while it may present a realistic method of doing it, until we find some blue-print, manual or a home video from back in the day, nobody can ever claim to have "solved" it, unless they're just looking for a lot of attention.

    7. Re:History Channel by catbutt · · Score: 1

      I don't get why an external spiral ramp would add much to the volume, if any.

      Couldn't they just leave some of it unfilled in, with the ramp being subtracted from the volume rather than added?

      Then, when they have reached the top, they would start filling in the ramps from the top down. The small rocks and rubble that were used to make the actual inclines could then be moved into spaces within that were left unfilled.

    8. Re:History Channel by coredog64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, I saw that too. I think the show was titled "This Is Spiral Ramp" and there was a bit about how Khufu wanted his pyramid to go to 11...

    9. Re:History Channel by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to the concrete theory were Core samples showed signs of bacterial growth that can only be present on the outside of the pyramids?

      My understanding is that In mortar mixes, this bacteria can be inside the finished stone too. I thought it was used to explain the exact levelness of each layer and all too. Or am i Thinking of another pyramid?

    10. Re:History Channel by ravenshrike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And none of this explains the many anomalies within the pyramid. Or the fact that the only stones that have been dated from the pyramid have been from the sheathing, which may or may not be the same age as the rest of the pyramid itself. Or why when the anomalies were to be fully explored the egyptian government shut down outside exploration of the pyramid.

    11. Re:History Channel by zippthorne · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yet they allowed the bodies to be removed? Since when is grave desecration ok if the grave in question happens to be "really, really neat."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PSH! we all know this is an april fool's joke!

      damn editors.... can't think of something original?

      pyramids were put there by aliens of course! ..... an entire sunday of nothing but OMG PONIES! left me jaded.

    13. Re:History Channel by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Informative
      You seem to be confused about what the word theory means. Merely dreaming up a scenario with an external ramp is not so much a theory as speculation.

      Anybody can come up with an idea like the external ramp, it's a nice story but meaningless if it can't be verified. In other words, to call the external ramp idea a scientific theory, you'd have to show exactly where you think the remains of the ramp infrastructure are located, directly on the pyramid. You could also show places where you think the material of the external ramp was put, show stones which look to you like they were cut to form part of the ramp, etc. In other words, you'd have to connect the idea of the ramp to the physical evidence, so that other scientists could agree or disagree. Merely making a drawing of a spiral ramp in a book and waffling about it does not constitute a preexisting theory.

      On the other hand, the internal ramp idea does constitute a real theory, because it actually makes a lot of engineering claims that can be checked by other scientists, like where the ramp actually is/was inside the pyramid etc.

    14. Re:History Channel by gopla · · Score: 0

      he's proposing that they built a spiral ramp INSIDE the pyramid, instead of outside. Advantages being keeping the workers out of the sun, and it could have been much smaller.

      The question arise that who built the out side? and how was it built? You cannot have any thing inside that is protected from sun unless there is something out side.
      Obviously I have not read TFA, these might have been answere there.

      Gopla

    15. Re:History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question arise that who built the out side? and how was it built? You cannot have any thing inside that is protected from sun unless there is something out side.
      Obviously I have not read TFA, these might have been answere there.


      You bring up a question and then answer it at the end of your paragraph with what you need to do next. Why did you even post?

    16. Re:History Channel by kinglink · · Score: 1

      No no . this is completely different because of X Y and Z. That's why this guy is a genius, the fact he has no proof or evidence doesn't matter he's a genius and deserves tons of credit.

      I agree with the parent, this theory was there for a while, he might have fine tuned the ending, but nothing groundbreaking here. Using the workforce and all the known data we can prove all major theories for the pyramids. The solution isn't the "easiest way" they could have built the period, it's for the ACTUAL way and this guy doesn't have any serious proof to my knowledge. Good for evolving theories, but yet again no theory is the winner yet.

      Seriously wouldn't an internal ramp leave at least a little mark? You know, somewhere that we can see?

    17. Re:History Channel by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they built the ramp inside the pyramid, it is probably still there. So if we find it, we can in fact claim to have "solved" the mystery. And if we look for it thoroughly without finding any traces, we can probably rule out the idea. This theory is better than the average pyramid construction theory because it *is* actually falsifiable.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    18. Re:History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Layers of rock form over time. You could quite easily have bacteria at the center of a solid chunk of stone.

    19. Re:History Channel by kcelery · · Score: 1, Insightful
      It is interesting to find from the website that the Egyptian were using translational method instead of rotational method. Some findings had shown the heavy rock were so heavy to be pulled. The builders prayed to their god. And so their god sent the primitive engineers to help the Egyptian. And it was the scarab.

      If you happened to move an metal barrel of 2' in diameter and a height of 4', you would notice that there are two ways to do it. Either slide along the floor or lay it horizontally with the axis along the floor. It is much easier to roll it than sliding.

      The exact structure of how the rectangular block was made into a cylinder is not known, and it should be studied further.

      The scene around the pyramid construction site should look like scarabs pushing the 'shxt' with their hind legs.

      And it was the scarab who first laughed at those who don't know what a wheel is and those who reinvented the wheel. The Egyptians were so impressed by the saving in effort, they made scarab an immortal figure.

    20. Re:History Channel by Proofof.+Chaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm no expert, but the way I read it, it explains many anomalies. The theory explains many of the voids and passages inside the pyramid that seemed to have no practical purpose.

    21. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, or you could just watch the history channel special where a bunch of modern people did it using no modern tools, in order to show that it was in fact quite possible.

      I wonder which part of piling sand onto the side of rocks in the desert you think couldn't be handled by tens of thousands of slaves over the course of decades. Is it the finding the sand? The moving it? I mean, is it also difficult for ancient people to get saltwater at the coast? Wood in the forest, perhaps?

      For every person that remembers how much work it is to move a bunch of sand, I'll show you a person who forgets just how many slave-years were put towards shit like this back then. The pyramids were how Egypt showed social, technological, religious and cultural superiority. They weren't just about kings' egos; they were important tools in establishing position during trade, in scaring slaves into not rebelling, and so on. In the age where a two story house seems unlikely, man-made mountains are no joke.

      When you hear ten thousand slaves for 25 years, it's not an exaggeration. Do you really think that this is more than 250,000 slave-hours? There are entire support towns excavated around the base of most of the pyramids; these things were obviously engineered from the perspective of city planners. It's no simple matter to coordinate, feed and home 10k people today, let alone when rocks still seem like a good thing to make weapons from.

      They weren't just sitting around playing hackeysack, y'know.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    22. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      250,000 slave years, not hours. Sigh. Much more impressive that way. If you lay the slaves end to end like one of those M&Ms from Los Angeles to New York things, you'd get a line of unbroken work stretching back to the seperation between H. heidelbergensis (barely apes) and H. rhodesiensis (barely human.) That's almost exactly the time where neanderthals and homo sapiens split apart.

      So yeah, much more impressive that way.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    23. Re:History Channel by Skreems · · Score: 1

      I wonder which part of piling sand onto the side of rocks in the desert you think couldn't be handled by tens of thousands of slaves over the course of decades.
      The part where it's the most accurately constructed building in the world today by a factor of 10.
      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    24. Re:History Channel by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course recent research shows that the workers probably wasn't slaves. They were treated much better, had good homes, received health treatment, etc. They were probably professional craftsmen.

    25. Re:History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only if you believe in that evolution claptrap

    26. Re:History Channel by Tatarize · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Egyptian government does that a lot. They have a fairly practical approach. When you can't get at the information without messing the stuff up, you don't get the information. Develop something to see through walls without damaging anything and they'll let you do it. Try to figure it out by tearing into stuff or using large vibrations and they won't.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    27. Re:History Channel by jrumney · · Score: 1

      They certainly could have done that, but it would have left visible traces which would have been found long before now.

    28. Re:History Channel by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Are you perhaps referring to those marks which are there, you know, inside the pyriamid in the form of inexplicable corridors with no apparent use (anymore)?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    29. Re:History Channel by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      Huh? Care to elaborate?

    30. Re:History Channel by cob666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet they allowed the bodies to be removed?

      When this pyramid was first excavated, there were no human remains inside. There were either never there or they were removed ages ago by sophisticated grave robbers.
       
      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    31. Re:History Channel by waif69 · · Score: 1

      Why would the Pharaoh care if the slaves were in the sun or not? If the slaves slowed down they would be whipped into shape, and if they died in the process, the slaves son or even another slave could take his place. Remember slaves were disposable tools to get a task accomplished.

    32. Re:History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, they weren't slaves and it wasn't to show social superiority.

      the pyramid was worked on by citizens of Upper and Lower Egypt, and it was done to unify the two nationalistically.

    33. Re:History Channel by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I remember that show. Apparently the pyramid was supposed to be 12x as large, but the wrong unit was recorded by a scribe.

    34. Re:History Channel by Peyna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm curious if this "recent research" is based off of writings that were found? Imagine how the story of how the U.S. got rich would look if the right person wrote it? Slaves from Africa? Nah. How about "professional immigrant craftsmen" working those fields instead?

      --
      What?
    35. Re:History Channel by ktappe · · Score: 1

      Imagine how the story of how the U.S. got rich would look if the right person wrote it? Slaves from Africa? Nah. How about "professional immigrant craftsmen" working those fields instead?
      It sounds as if you want to believe the pyramids were built with slave labor. Then go ahead--tell us where the slaves came from, considering the Egyptians were not generally a conquering civilization. And how they performed such meticulous work that a knifeblade could not be inserted between any of the stone blocks. That's the work of craftsmen, not men plucked from another life being whipped.

      It's actually much more plausible that the pyramids were huge public works projects, much like the Hoover Dam. They helped the economy and required skilled labor to achieve.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    36. Re:History Channel by Blain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes and no. Yes, there were some well-paid (well-fed) professionals in charge of the construction of the pyramids. No, there were no slaves involved with the production of the pyramids. There was, however, a huge body of workers that rotated to the pyramid site from different regions to work on these pyramids. They were peasants who were not slaves, but their lives were pretty bleak. They had the same diet while working on the pyramids as they did when working in the fields. Working on the pyramids (or other large construction projects) was just another part of their responsibility in maintaining ma'at, and was carried out during the part of the year when these workers weren't needed for agricultural work.

      This was a mixture of religious responsibility and make-work that not only satisfied ma'at, it also provided work with which these workers could earn food when there wasn't other work to be had.

    37. Re:History Channel by Peyna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds as if you want to believe the pyramids were built with slave labor.

      No. My point was that we should be careful to rely upon what they wrote down in determining what they did. If this "recent research" is based off of other archeological findings, such as, for example, finding workers' living quarters where they found evidence of them eating food which slaves would not have been permitted to eat, then that might be considered better proof.

      My point had nothing to do with whether they were slaves or not---that was just a convenient anology---, but whether we should believe what a particular civilization wrote down as far as what that civilization did. People tend to cast theimselves in a little better light than is warranted.

      --
      What?
    38. Re:History Channel by Blain · · Score: 1

      It's based off of the growing understanding of the way ancient Egyptian culture functioned. There were slaves in Egypt, but they were a very small part of the population, and were primarily used in the homes of the elites. The vast majority of the population were dependent workers who were dependent upon the temples that controlled the vast majority of the agricultural land that they worked on. They worked on the land and on other projects for the benefit of the temples or the king (no separation between church and state -- no real concept of either church or state, actually) and the temples provided them with their food and other things. They were not chattel, and were not sold. They were neither slaves nor serfs. They were peasants, who had the same end of the stick peasants have always had.

    39. Re:History Channel by Z1NG · · Score: 2, Funny

      After reading your comment, I agreed with your sig.

    40. Re:History Channel by Skreems · · Score: 1

      The passages inside the pyramid are all extremely straight and precise, such that the longest of them, referred to as the descending passage, which is 350' 0.25" long deviates from being truly straight by less than 0.25 inches, while one of the shorter passages with a length of just over 150 feet deviates from being truly straight by a mere 0.020 inches.
      That's from Wikipedia, but similar measurements are available in basically any exhaustive reference on the pyramids. Similar precision is shown in every aspect of the construction. In contrast, extremely modern buildings such as skyscrapers etc can deviate from true straight by several inches over the same distance. We could make them more precise, but we don't because A) it's expensive to do so, and B) we don't need to.
      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    41. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Er, the pyramids aren't even the most accurately aligned buildings of the ancient world, let alone the modern world. Several of the stone circles (though not Stonehenge itself,) many of the Aztec calendars and several of the Greek solar calendars are significantly better physically aligned than are the pyramids. Or, did you think people who could make something like the Antikythera Mechanism couldn't align things to the sky?

      Now, if you want to talk about *modern* buildings, if you think the pyramids are better aligned than satellite receiving grids, airport transponder towers and so on, well, I'm just not sure what to tell you.

      The "amazing alignment" you're speaking of is about a degree and a half of error, which when measured against the size of the pyramid, works out to be about twelve feet. Is that amazing for an ancient people eyeballing the sky? Hell yes. Is it competitive with modern buildings? Dude, the game of geocaching, played with $100 GPS units, is more accurate than that, ffs.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    42. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Oh for christ's sake, you mean physical alignment? Dude, there are chip fabs that can't tolerate deviances of a thousandth of an inch over half a mile. If you think this is the most accurate building on Earth, you don't know a thing about buildings on Earth.

      We could make them more precise, but we don't because A) it's expensive to do so, and B) we don't need to.

      Don't confuse your ignorance of when we do and when we need to for that we never do and have no need. Building characteristics are frequently critical properties in fabrication plants. The tolerances you describe are way larger than acceptable tolerances for a skyscraper over fifty stories, too. Or did you think you can just stack a bunch of metal with a bunch of little mistakes and expect it to hold up?

      We have aligned rail from the 1800s with better characteristics than the ones you're now pretending are the best on Earth. Go read a book.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    43. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Er, where is this research, please? I ask because we've known there were paid craftsmen there since the 1800s, and I'm a little confused what makes you believe that those cities full of barracks sleeping with little actual comfortable houses all around them would be full of something other than slaves. Or did you believe that paid craftsmen sometimes just lived in slave quarters?

      Please cite the research you name, if you're going to name it. It is contrary to everything I've studied.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    44. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that peasants in Egypt weren't paid, did not own their homes, had no control over their occupation, could be bought and sold with or without their families, and could be killed at the whim of any upper class citizen with no ramifications, I'm curious what you believe the distinction between peasant and slave is. Is it just the ostrich feather?

      As far as I know, Carthage was the only empire in that area and timeframe which did not make significant use of slaves, and even they still traded in slaves as a luxury commodity between other empires.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    45. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, Dr. Sivana. ;)

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    46. Re:History Channel by Blain · · Score: 1

      No, they could not be sold, and they were not linked to the land, so they were neither slaves nor serfs. They were not arbitrarily separated from their families, although they might be sent away (as to work on pyramids) for a time. They were seen as important members of society and as Egyptians, which put them ahead of anybody who wasn't. They could not be killed at whim without consequences -- someone of position has their responsibility to ma'at as well, and killing anybody arbitrarily was a significant disturbance of ma'at. Even the king had responsibility to ma'at -- the greatest and most direct responsibility of anybody. They had a place in the afterworld which they could achieve through doing their part to maintain ma'at. They would not be permanently sent out of Egypt where there would be no chance that they could receive proper burial that would prepare them for the afterlife.

      As I said, their lives were not to be confused with Club Med or Disneyland -- they were filled with very hard physical labor, and they did not enjoy rights and freedoms that we take for granted. However, for the times that they lived in, they had better lives than those of similar station in other lands, because Egypt was so capable of producing abundant amounts of grain, and those over them had serious responsibility to see to it that they did have food and shelter.

      There were Egyptian slaves, as I said. There may well have been more of them than there were elites/nobles. But there were far more dependent workers (which included farmer workers, tanners, smiths, potters, etc.) than there were slaves.

      Just finished a quarter of Ancient Egypt History, so this stuff's still relatively fresh in my mind.

    47. Re:History Channel by Blain · · Score: 1

      Oh, you got some of those purposes right, but others wrong. The pyramids were about having a shape for the king's tomb that would help a portion of his being find its way into the sky to become one with Amun-Re, so their purpose was religious. These purposes were not, ultimately effective -- none of the great pyramids were finished before their intended occupants had already died -- they weren't actually finished at all.

      They were also very large public-works projects, and they were very impressive, but they were not used to quell slave rebellions because there weren't that many slaves (none in the production of the pyramids, discussed elsewhere in the thread), and there were never rebellions starting from the lower-classes in ancient Egypt. Rebellions always started from the top, with either the local elites or the family of the king. While the peasants weren't kicking back and watching TV with a remote control, they were reasonably content with their situation -- Egypt was the most stable society Earth has seen, and you don't get that with a system where the bulk of the population is seriously unhappy (it certainly didn't work for Sparta for even a significant fraction of the time it worked for Egypt, and the Egyptian civilization did not fall because of peasant revolts -- it was conquered by a series of outsiders).

      There was some trade at the time of the Old Kingdom (when the pyramids were built), but it was pretty minor compared to what it would be with the New Kingdom, several thousand years later, primarily because there weren't significant kingdoms for them to trade with. They did some localized trade for things like wood and copper, but most of what they needed for survival and decoration was available in Egypt.

      There were two story houses, and massive apartment-like neighborhoods that date back to this period.

      But, yeah, these consumed massive amounts of economic power, and they were not about royal ego-trips. It's really hard for modern folks to understand the way in which the people who worked on this (which included a massive administrative work to organize the laborers' rotations, food and physical needs) understood what they were doing and why.

    48. Re:History Channel by Blain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They were never there. The kings they were built for died before they could be completed, so they weren't completed. The kings were buried elsewhere.

    49. Re:History Channel by Blain · · Score: 1

      Um, the scarab beetle was a holy symbol because it pushed around the little balls of dung and (with eggs laid in it), life came out of it. It was a symbol of life and birth. The ball-ness of it was also cool, but it wasn't the only reason for the scarab's role in Egyptian religion.

    50. Re:History Channel by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I believe this was accounted for when the claim was made.

    51. Re:History Channel by plover · · Score: 1

      The exact structure of how the rectangular block was made into a cylinder is not known, and it should be studied further.

      Actually, this was discovered over 25 years ago (I remember reading the article in Omni magazine in the early 1980s.) In the article I read, the author was a quarry owner who had invented sets of wooden arcs, joined by sticks, that looked something like this: |)=|) He placed four of these arcs around a single square block and secured them with rope, allowing the block to act as the axis of a cylinder and enabling it to be easily rolled. He then took 20 out-of-shape executives and using only a rope anchored at the top of a slope they pulled a two-ton block up a ramp in his quarry. He figured "this is so easy someone else must have thought of it first."

      So he went digging through history books and came across Egyptian pyramid descriptions. Among the artifacts found inside the pyramids were some arcs that were virtually identical to the ones he had created. Previous archaeologists had labeled these as "cradles" without no comment as to what they might have been cradling.

      --
      John
    52. Re:History Channel by Skreems · · Score: 1

      I didn't say alignment, I said construction. 0.25 inches from true straight over the full length is a lot better than 12 feet like you're saying.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    53. Re:History Channel by Skreems · · Score: 1

      If you have sources for any of that I'd love to see it, because most of what I posted above is from actual engineers...

      For example, off the top of my head, this specifies that a 20 story building (~200 feet) can have a deviance of up to 75mm in the steel support structure. That works out to about 0.2% deviance. By contrast, the pyramid has deviances on the order of 0.25 inches over 350 feet, or about 0.006%. You said scrapers over 50 stories... so say, 50 stories (about 500 feet), assuming the same 75mm tolerance, would still give 0.05%. To be as precise as the Giza pyramid, a 500 foot tall steel support would have to deviate from true straight by less than 10mm. We just don't build our structures to that level of precision, even multi-hundred story skyscrapers.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    54. Re:History Channel by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      It sounds as if you want to believe the pyramids were built with slave labor. Then go ahead--tell us where the slaves came from, considering the Egyptians were not generally a conquering civilization. And how they performed such meticulous work that a knifeblade could not be inserted between any of the stone blocks. That's the work of craftsmen, not men plucked from another life being whipped.

      I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but it seems to me that they could have simply bought the slaves.

    55. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      You said scrapers over 50 stories... so say, 50 stories (about 500 feet), assuming the same 75mm tolerance

      The bigger it is, the more sensitive it is to problems. Treehouses can deviate by a foot. By the by, I suggest that next time you read more carefully. The measurement you're referring to is the plumbness of a column from building top to building floor. The germane quote is alignment of horizontal members: in plan to within 1:1000, except that plus or minus 3 mm is always acceptable and more than plus or minus 6 mm is never acceptable. It's important to realize that the primary measurement is 1:1000 as measured against the thickness of the structure in question, so the 3mm will be hit on almost every occasion; the limiting range is there for stress tolerance calculations and for dealing with small foundations.

      That said, you really can't compare an absolute failure limit to an instance. They're apples and oranges. The number you're talking about is the number where it falls apart. No sane contractor will allow things to get anywhere near that number. It is typical for a contractor to aim for 10% of a tolerance range during construction, suggesting a real-world error of .3 millimeters. Given that the typical commercial 50-story building has a base of 150 feet or more, and given that the tunnels you're describing are in the parts of the pyramid that are roughly 250 feet across, the skyscrapers are thus weighing in at a typical 14% of margin as compared to the pyramids. Mind you, that's just for an average skyscraper, whose accuracy does not in any way compare with that of a modern fab plant. The Boeing Everett WA fabrication site is 98 acres, and has a total floor deviance of less than half a millimeter, suggesting a floor error less than one one hundred thousandth of Giza.

      I suspect there are many buildings on Earth whose floor tolerance makes Boeing's site look sloppy by comparison. One thing that seems likely to me to be a good candidate is the building housing a particle accelerator ring; there is no doubt in my mind that the floor accuracy of the Large Hadron Collider is enough to make a mason fall to his knees and cry.

      I mean, think it through. If every story was 75mm off edge to edge, at 50 stories, one side of the building would be 12 feet and change, or just under one and a quarter US stories, taller than the other. The Washington Monument is 55 feet at the base and 34 feet at the top; that suggests a floor slope of 19 degrees and change. The building would curve like a Khopesh. That is /not/ safe.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    56. Re:History Channel by Skreems · · Score: 1

      While I'm certainly prepared to believe that fabrication plants are extremely precise, I'm having a hard time picturing why the Boeing site, for example, NEEDS a floor that deviates by less than half a millimeter over 98 acres. It would be phenomenally expensive to create such a structure. In addition, your last paragraph completely misunderstands the document I linked. The 75mm limit was over the entire height of the building, as was clearly stated.

      Anyway, the original statement of "most precise building in the world" is overkill, true or not. However, it doesn't seem like it's inappropriate to point out that it's more precise (by several powers of 10) than all but the most advanced modern buildings, all of which are built with modern technology. That's still amazing, even if they aren't as precise as ultra-modern fab plants and such.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    57. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      In addition, your last paragraph completely misunderstands the document I linked. The 75mm limit was over the entire height of the building, as was clearly stated.

      Er. "The measurement you're referring to is the plumbness of a column from building top to building floor." I should think it clear that I understood that quite thoroughly. What I'm trying to explain to you is that you're looking at the wrong direction. You don't measure vertical drift against building height, you measure it against building width; the issue is the angle of the floor. The floor of a 50 story building which is higher on one side by two inches is no less uneven than a 20 story building which is higher on one side by two inches. The height of the building has nothing to do with it.

      Please re-read what I said previously. There is a reason I said exactly what you've chosen to repeat as a rebuttal. I knew what I was reading. You would do well to be less dismissive of what other people say to you, when they kindly point out mistakes; certainly you would be wise not to phrase things in so nasty a form as "your last paragraph completely misunderstands the document I linked;" you'll find that when, like now, you are simply repeating the error you previously made, as Matlock said in his first, weirdest season, "the egg on your face will not in fact make a breakfast."

      When looking at a slope, and when measuring slab rise as the vertical component, you have to make a right triangle to get the slab arc. There's a reason that the remaining arm is horizontal. There's a reason these things are measured in angles. C'mon.

      While I'm certainly prepared to believe that fabrication plants are extremely precise, I'm having a hard time picturing why the Boeing site, for example, NEEDS a floor that deviates by less than half a millimeter over 98 acres.

      Because planes are built at varying lengths throughout their infancy, if you'll excuse the metaphor. As such, Boeing can make more efficient use of the floor space if they don't have to partition it according to their buildings' arbitrary floor positioning.

      It would be phenomenally expensive to create such a structure.

      As evidenced by that their factory is 100 acres, and that it was originally 50, they obviously need and can afford the space. Besides, the cost of such a structure makes the efficient use thereof all the more important.

      However, it doesn't seem like it's inappropriate to point out that it's more precise (by several powers of 10) than all but the most advanced modern buildings, all of which are built with modern technology.

      I wish you would quit saying this. The numbers do not uphold it, nor does common sense, nor have you cited an authority giving anything other than raw measurements. I don't see any reason for you to believe this. There is no authorative document comparing the pyramids' accuracy to those of any other building, nor did the supposed accuracy of the building have anything to do with the original topic.

      Anyway, if you're going to continue to reiterate things that are under dispute without appropriate repudiation, I guess this conversation isn't worth following through.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    58. Re:History Channel by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Er. "The measurement you're referring to is the plumbness of a column from building top to building floor." I should think it clear that I understood that quite thoroughly. What I'm trying to explain to you is that you're looking at the wrong direction. You don't measure vertical drift against building height, you measure it against building width; the issue is the angle of the floor. The floor of a 50 story building which is higher on one side by two inches is no less uneven than a 20 story building which is higher on one side by two inches. The height of the building has nothing to do with it.
      You keep saying this, and you're mixing two things which shouldn't be mixed. Plumbness refers to deviation from perfectly straight, correct? So the document I linked, and my own statements, were both referring to a maximum 75mm deviation from perfectly straight, along the entire length of the vertical beam. But then you go saying things like "if one side of each floor was 75mm higher than the other, the whole building would be uneven by 12 feet when you reached the top". The measurements I'm talking about have nothing to do with height. I don't know why you keep insisting it does, or insisting that MY statements do, but you're clearly misunderstanding something. I've not been talking about height differences at any point.

      The numbers do not uphold it, nor does common sense, nor have you cited an authority giving anything other than raw measurements. I don't see any reason for you to believe this. There is no authorative document comparing the pyramids' accuracy to those of any other building, nor did the supposed accuracy of the building have anything to do with the original topic.
      Actually they do. Look in almost any text and you'll find it. Attempts have been made to explain it away, too: for example, one widely held theory is that a ditch was dug around the base, flooded, and the surface of the water used to create such an amazingly level foundation for the structure. And the OP asked what about the building made it seem too difficult for an army of manual workers with copper tools. This is a perfectly valid reply to that question.
      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    59. Re:History Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Pharaoh wasn't retarded.


      One or even a hundred slaves may have been disposable. But 10,000 slaves were not trivial to replace.

    60. Re:History Channel by stonecypher · · Score: 1
      Plumbness refers to deviation from perfectly straight, correct? So the document I linked, and my own statements, were both referring to a maximum 75mm deviation from perfectly straight, along the entire length of the vertical beam.

      Jesus, do I have to draw you a diagram? The error in a floor is HORIZONTAL. Why is this hard for you to understand? If a floor is at three degrees, that means one side of it is higher than the other. Plumbness measures deviation from VERTICALLY STRAIGHT. A plumb is a big chunk of metal on the end of a rope. You use it to tell if something is going up and down straightly. Now, I don't know about you, but most floors in the buildings I've been to - even weird places like the Mystery Spot - are horizontal.

      This really isn't that complicated. Get a piece of string. Put something heavy on it. Now, imagine where a pipe might be if it was just five degrees wrong. Don't try to change that number. Five degrees. Just barely wrong. See how it's almost straight up and down? Now, imagine where a floor would be if it was five degrees wrong. Don't try to change that number. Five degrees. Just barely wrong. See how it's almost perfectly horizontal?

      "Well but the error for a floor is measured vertically." Yes, it is. Error for a measurement is perpendicular to the real direction. You're trying to compare plumbness to floor error. That's broken. You do not compare an accuracy with an error. Plumbness is vertical, error horizontal. Floor evenness is horizontal, error vertical.

      YOU ARE MEASURING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. Use your common sense example-making muscles. This really isn't that hard.

      But then you go saying things like "if one side of each floor was 75mm higher than the other, the whole building would be uneven by 12 feet when you reached the top". The measurements I'm talking about have nothing to do with height.

      Ok. So, a perfect floor is perfectly horizontal. A floor's perfection has nothing to do with its extent in the direction of the floor plane. If the error component of a horizontal floor isn't horizontal, and if you claim it isn't vertical, where exactly is the error component?

      Let's get back to our common sense example, shall we? Start with a piece of cardboard, or something else that forms a rigid almost-plane. That's your floor. Now, hold it out in front of you with zero error (or as close as you can get.) Imagine a 3d coordinate grid in your head, such that Z is from floor to sky. You'll notice that all corners of the cardboard have the same Z value; this is how one defines a perfect-angle floor.

      Now, hold it with a 10% grade error. See how the Z value of either two or three corners has changed? That is the vertical error.

      The reason a horizontal floor has a vertical error is because any non-perfect floor is a hill. Think it through.

      I don't know why you keep insisting it does, or insisting that MY statements do, but you're clearly misunderstanding something. I've not been talking about height differences at any point.

      All errors in floor accuracy are height errors, by definition.

      I don't see any reason or you to believe [that Giza is the most accurate building]
      Actually they do. Look in almost any text and you'll find it.

      Yeah, that's classic evasive behavior. I asked for a citation because the citation doesn't exist. "Almost any text" isn't a citation, and I happen to be looking at one such text right now, Corinna Rossi's excellent "Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt," and it says no such thing.

      Quit handwaving. Cite an actual book and page, or quit pretending the quote exists.

      Attempts have been made to explain it away, too:

      I really don't believe you. Y'see, anyone with even a basic understanding of architectural engineering knows that a structure built on sand will eventually settle plumb; the amount of time it

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    61. Re:History Channel by Skreems · · Score: 1

      YOU ARE MEASURING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. Use your common sense example-making muscles. This really isn't that hard.
      I haven't been talking about floor height error or vertical measurements at any point. I've only been talking about the horizontal deviation of vertical columns. The fact that you keep misunderstanding what I'm arguing, and then ranting against that strawman, is a pretty strong reason to take nothing you say seriously. I've explained this like four times now and you still don't seem to get it.

      Y'see, anyone with even a basic understanding of architectural engineering knows that a structure built on sand will eventually settle plumb; the amount of time it takes varies by weight, and I'm sure the pyramids are enormously heavy, but five thousand years would be long enough for a modern skyscraper to settle plumb, let alone a pyramid.
      The Giza pyramid is built on a rock outcropping. It is built directly on solid bedrock. Not sand. Again, you give me no reason to think you know what you're talking about.

      It would only seem so to the poorly educated; a single mason can excavate a Giza-sized block of limestone using bronze tools in approx six hours, according to Rossi, who cites a Yale study in which people actually excavated blocks for several weeks.
      That seems falacious, given that modern quaries using power tools are only required to dress blocks to within 0.25", while the blocks in the pyramids are dressed to a tolerance of 0.01".

      As for sources, feel free to check out I.E.S. Edwards, Ancient Egypt, William Flinders Petrie, Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (precision measurements which I've been citing, made as far back as the 1800s, many current researchers have cited this work), A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, and for a more speculative look, Chris Dunn's, The Giza Power Plant, which is an assessment of the building tolerances and methods by a man with 35 years of experience in various physical engineering fields.
      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
  2. Oh, is this a real story? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    I saw the condensed version (due to my preferences) and clicking it just said "Nothing to see here; move along." It would have been funny if it had stayed like that....

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Oh, is this a real story? by rivaldufus · · Score: 3, Funny

      I clicked on the "full 20 year realtime version." It's a little boring.

  3. Mystery? by Bin+Naden · · Score: 1

    Any sort of ramp would do. I really don't see why he has to specify that it's a spiral ramp.

    --
    There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
    1. Re:Mystery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the ponies (OMG!1) liked spiral ramps better. Smart people, the ancient Egyptians.

    2. Re:Mystery? by Score+Whore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because he has damned 3D technology to confirm his theory as the absolutely proven method used. Goddammit! He modeled it on his computer, it is the inviolate truth.

    3. Re:Mystery? by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Because when it's internal to the footprint of the building, a straight ramp could only be as long as the building, so the higher you went, the steeper you'd have to make it. With a spiral ramp, you can keep the ramp's slope the same for however tall you want to make it.

  4. Re:Waitasec... by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

    Eh, well considering that the content of the article isn't really "new"...

    Perhaps it's a joke to see if people will be excited at a theory that's been bandied about for a long time now?

    Besides, I thought that we'd stop getting April Fools stories now that it's April 2nd GMT.

  5. Where's the evidence? by arbie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems like this would be easy to verify. There should be the remnants of the tunnels still in place. HAs he found any?

    1. Re:Where's the evidence? by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

      A quick trip to Google Image search for Khufu tunnel.

      --

      "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    2. Re:Where's the evidence? by discontinuity · · Score: 1

      Seems like this would be easy to verify. There should be the remnants of the tunnels still in place. HAs he found any?

      From TFA: "Houdin said he plans to verify his theories through non-invasive tests on site."

      I'd be surprised if he has no info at all about what is inside the pyramid, but sounds like he's short of being able to convince a skeptic.

  6. Alien aid for a third-rate planet by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny
    A far off alien culture sees a third-rate planet called EARTH inhabitied by primitive beings. After a few open atmosphere concerts (Earthling Aid) and a telethon (Dough for Doh!), they raise enough money to send an engineering fleet to ask the earthlings what they want built.

    Due to some translation errors, and an over active project manager's ego, a simple request for a small pond to keep water for a herd of goats gets "innovated" into a series of pyramids that can be seen from far away. The rest is history.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Alien aid for a third-rate planet by slayermet420 · · Score: 1

      A far off alien culture sees a third-rate planet called EARTH inhabitied by primitive beings. After a few open atmosphere concerts (Earthling Aid) and a telethon (Dough for Doh!), they raise enough money to send an engineering fleet to ask the earthlings what they want built. Due to some translation errors, and an over active project manager's ego, a simple request for a small pond to keep water for a herd of goats gets "innovated" into a series of pyramids that can be seen from far away. The rest is history. To me, this theory seems to make the most sense.
      --
      Geeks strike again 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Alien aid for a third-rate planet by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Accompanied by that intergalactic hit single "Do They Know Its Zaphod Beeblebrox Day?"

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  7. Probably a true story by GFree · · Score: 2, Informative

    Doesn't have that SlashRating© bullshit on the side of the article. The horror has ended!

    1. Re:Probably a true story by Sneakernets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So this means I can't get modded insightful for no reason?


      Damnit, I guess I'll have to try next year.

      --
      "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:Probably a true story by normuser · · Score: 1

      The horror has ended!

      Has it?
      Or are they just trying to fool you into a false sense of security before striking?
      I mean there is still two hours left.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      XXX#######
    3. Re:Probably a true story by neoRUR · · Score: 4, Funny

      And this means I can't get Modded Funny for no reason also.

    4. Re:Probably a true story by greg_barton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The meta comment has been modded higher than the comment?

      Next year can I be modded higher for the meta meta comment?

    5. Re:Probably a true story by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Whatever. 5. pshaw. You'll never beat The first Slashdot troll post investigation. While they've gone in and tried to rewrite history, K5 has the juice.

    6. Re:Probably a true story by chebucto · · Score: 1

      Next year can I be modded higher for the meta meta comment?
      Be not hasty, young grasshopper. What you ask would require that you reach the mythical moderation of +6, something beyond the province of mortal users. Post often, and insightfully, and you may one day reach the true Zen of UID=0. Only then can you achieve +6 Funny.
      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    7. Re:Probably a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i heard its available fort subscribers.

    8. Re:Probably a true story by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      And I can remain completely unmodded for no reason whatsoever.

  8. omgponies by xLittleP · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow you guys are dumb. This is obviously NOT a real article.

    Everybody knows the pyramids were created by giant aliens.

    --
    When is Slashdot going to add a -1 moderation option for people who actually RTFA?
    1. Re:omgponies by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Everybody knows the pyramids were created by giant aliens.

          You obviously haven't met them. I don't know how many times I've hit my head when I haven't ducked enough through their doorways. Freakin' superintelligent intergalactic species, you'd think they would be able to build a doorway more than 5' tall.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:omgponies by metlin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who do you think you are, Daniel Jackson?

      Bleh! ;)

    3. Re:omgponies by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

      PSH! We all know that aliens came HERE and stole OUR ideas of the pyramids without paying us a dime (earth being the salvation army of the universe for ideas, MP3s and pron).

      And I for one welcome our new stealing-from-earth, DRM free overlords.

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    4. Re:omgponies by andr0meda · · Score: 1


      If *you* were an alien, would you build a pyramid? ..

      Ok, you probably would, don't ya?

      --
      With great power comes great electricity bills.
  9. 3D Presentation by lunadude · · Score: 1

    Nicely done narration of the process. The 3D technique allowed some exploration for the viewer. A passive video would not have been as effective for this.

    Took a bit to accept the virtual scientist, but it worked.

  10. Feasible... by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what we have here is a feasible theory with no supporting physical evidence. I don't know I would call this "uncovering" or "discovering", since it is completely speculative.

    Personally, I think the most "obvious" method would be correct. The Egyptians would not have been able to do a computer simulation to determine if their building plans were feasible. Thus I would think they would have gone with the most obvious, full-proof method, even if it would have required more resources. The article is short on details, but any building techniques beyond a certain level of complexity would likely have been too much of a gamble for them to attempt.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Feasible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, if you had bothered to RTFA, you'd have noticed that it's specifically referred to as a hypothesis, which is the correct term, unlike theory, and that the man intend to go looking for evidence using "non-invasive techniques".

      Second, the Egyptians may not have had computer simulations, but they did have a lot of experience. The problem with the "obvious" method is (obviously ;-) that it requires much more material (more in the ramp than than what's in the pyramid) that you have bring there *and* get rid of once the thing is finished. And while it is safe to assume they thought about it, and probably tried it on smaller ones, it would have been very obvious to them that it just wouldn't work for bigger projects.

    2. Re:Feasible... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It looks like a gimick to get people to download their 3D viewing software (but I'm not sure, as I'm on Linux/Firefox, so all I know is that the required plugin is not available for me.) At least, that is the interest of the hosting company - the architect story may be legitimate.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    3. Re:Feasible... by linatux · · Score: 1, Funny

      The most obvious method would be top-down. Stick one block there, then dig away the sand underneath. Slot some more in around the sides..... repeat .... Then level the desert around your new pyramid =)

    4. Re:Feasible... by saskboy · · Score: 1

      I think the concrete theory is most plausible from what I've heard so far. It's a lot easier to pour a pyramid than lift formed rocks.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    5. Re:Feasible... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Egyptians didn't have simulations, but they did have a lot of trial and error. The pyramids at Giza are only the most famous. There were many other projects that show a refinement of methods. These were sophisticated people with generations of engineering experience, so the "obvious" method may not be not correct.
      That said, you are correct about this article being speculation. The author is making quite a claim without any physical evidence.
      Examples of other pyramids: http://www.egyptologyonline.com/pyramids.htm

    6. Re:Feasible... by Verte · · Score: 0

      The most obvious, full-proof method is that they just lifted the rocks on their own. I suspect we were a lot, lot stronger all those eons ago.

      --
      We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
    7. Re:Feasible... by wolf369T · · Score: 0

      I did download it on XP and IE7. First, IE7 crashed. Then, just showed and empty brownish screen. No 3D whatsoever. Maybe a 3D brown-hole, but no pyramid.

    8. Re:Feasible... by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think you are right. I RTFA, and "theory" is used 3 times and "hypothesis" is used once. You can form a hypothesis that "the pyramid could be built this way", since you can test it. What you can't do is form a hypothesis that "the pyramid was built this way"; That will always be a theory since we can never know for sure. Just like mass extinction of Dinosaurs, which is a theory even though we have some pretty strong evidence it occurred.

      The reason the story is annoying is that alongside "theory", the article contains claims that this work is "Ending eight years of study on the subject", and "Houdin used 3D technology to have his theory confirmed". That is more than you should claim for a theory you have yet to find physical evidence for.

  11. No shortage of sand in Egypt by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The sphynx was covered to its neck in blown in sand not so long ago. Some other buildings bear evidence of using sand to cover the site as they built up with rough stone, then as they dug it out again, the stones were dressed nicely from the top down. Egyptians are used to sand - it is everywhere - there is no shortage of it. This architect clearly could not see the forest for all the sand...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      All you need do is assemble a Great Pyramid sized pile of sand, stop it from blowing away for 20 years, make it firm enough to carry huge stones on rollers and remove it afterwards.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by khallow · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you wetted the sand. Wooden runners might have been enough bracing to support the stones on hardened mud. Depends how much clay and similar minerals were in the available sand.

    3. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      OH yeah do the math, 100000000 trillion litres of water, from where?

      Just try attempting this even on a 100th scale, you will fail.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    4. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by ceeam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Note that when Pyramids were being built the climate in northern Africa was much different to what it is today. There was no such a huge desert. There was an awful lot of people living in Egypt. And in fact, I read somewhere, that agriculture in northern africa basically fed the whole Roman Empire. Some, BTW, claim that deforestation from this agriculture was the main cause of desertification. Same thing in Iraq, BTW - Babylonians were not leaving in the sand.

    5. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      From what I've read things were cooler and wetter in that region thousands of years ago. The Iraq region was also much more fertile due to a complex irrigation system that the Mongols and subsiquent decay managed to destroy.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    6. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Piling up (and tearing down) that much sand would've been as great a task as building the pyramids themselves.

      I wonder if anyone has dug around the base of the great pyramids. If they used ramps then there must be some traces of foundations or some such signs left near them.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    7. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by khallow · · Score: 1

      From the Nile, right next door. And you have about 9 zeros too many even if the ramp were some how pure water.

    8. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by inKubus · · Score: 1

      There was also a receding ice age which would probably lead to colder temps in the region, which is still continuing, i might add.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    9. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by Blain · · Score: 1

      Climate things were different then than now, and Egypt did feed Rome, but those events are thousands of years apart. There was desert there at the time of the Old Kingdom -- the Egyptians always had a term for the black lands (which were flooded by the Nile every year) and the red lands (which were desert). There was a time a few thousand years earlier than the Egyptian civilization when North Africa was very wet, but then George Bush came along with Hummers and changed the climate and turned it all to desert.

      Oh, wait, that was a climate change that can't be blamed on Bush. I forgot.

      Egyptians knew sand.

    10. Re:No shortage of sand in Egypt by Blain · · Score: 1

      There are massive piles of rubble that are remnants of the ramps laid out along the edge of the Giza plateau. So, yes, they've looked for them and found them.

  12. Actual, recent, "news" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't somebody announce in the last month or so that the Egyptians simply used concrete?

    1. Re:Actual, recent, "news" by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the current discussion is abbout how they put in the formwork, and where they parked the mixing truck. I'd like to know how they got those big trowels up there too.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Actual, recent, "news" by trianglman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this has been proposed every few years. I can't find any articles on it right now, but the most recent time it was talked about, the scientists showed core samples that had crystallization that matches the way concrete would form. These get ignored because anyone who wants to study the pyramids aren't allowed to unless they subscribe to Egypt's dogmatic view that they were built @3000 BC by hard working Egyptians moving gigantic rocks thousands of miles...

      --
      Clones are people two.
  13. Re:I Expect to see PINK next April 1st on Slashdot by captjc · · Score: 1

    Personally, I thought this was one of the worst...it was so...tame. Last year was great. It is as if they aren't really trying this year.

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  14. All i have to say is: by iamstretchypanda · · Score: 0, Troll

    OMGPONIES... I did my part, please tag appropriately.

    Thanks

  15. Other articles by dcam · · Score: 3, Funny
    There was an smh article about this. Choice quote:

    "This is better than the other theories, because it is the only theory that works," Houdin said after unveiling his hypothesis in a lavish ceremony using 3-D computer simulation.


    You'd never guess he is French would you.
    --
    meh
    1. Re:Other articles by nanosquid · · Score: 1

      Right. Based on that description, I'd have guessed he's a web startup CEO desperate for funding.

  16. Simple calculation -- one block every 100 seconds by Jeff1946 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's see 3,000,000 blocks / (365*20)days = 420 blocks/day. Assuming an average of 12hrs of daylight we get 35 blocks an hour which is about 100 seconds / block. Just the cutting and shaping this many blocks with simple tools is amazing, not to mention transporting then raising them. A truly astounding feat.

  17. Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here, you missed this part in your copy/paste...

    Ending eight years of study on the subject, architect Jean-Pierre Houdin released his findings and a computerized 3-D mockup showing how workers would have erected the pyramid at Giza outside Cairo.

    ...

    According to his theory - shown in a computer model available at http://www.3ds.com/khufu - the builders put up an outer ramp for the first 140 feet, then constructed an inner ramp in a corkscrew shape to complete the 450-foot structure.

    Houdin also postulated that King's Chamber was hoisted into place through a system of counterweights.

    Houdin said he plans to verify his theories through non-invasive tests on site.


    If you're going to copy half the article word for word, at least do the whole damn thing.

  18. The horror is over!!! by i_wanna_be_a_scienti · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    |-||_|RR4!! |\|() |\/|()R3 ()F 7|-|()53 5L45|-||)()7715! \/\/3 4R3 FR33 F()R 4|\|()7|-|3R '/34R!!! system wouldn't let me yell, so i typed it in yell 1337 script

  19. Re:I Expect to see PINK next April 1st on Slashdot by chebucto · · Score: 1
    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  20. PBS: This Old Pyramid by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

    They took the stone mason from this "This Old House" and in 30 days built like 10 meter tall Pyramid. They used a simple outside ramp and "turning" posts at the corners. Hardest part was placing the cap stone.

    Was a great show, I guess it sis not make it to France.

  21. Re:Feasible... practice? by victorl19 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless the great pyramid was the first one they ever built, some of these methods (especially rope twisting scaffold to raise the capstone) may have been tried on smaller pyramids. Thus, the gamble might not have been as big.

  22. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you get enough people together, you can fill the Great Lakes with urine in 5 seconds flat.

    Rates aren't really all that amazing for processes which are embarrassingly parallel, and putting rocks on a pyramid is one of those kinds of processes.

    The construction of the pyramids is still impressive, but more from an economic than engineering point of view.

  23. Pulitzer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's spelled "Pulitzer", you insensitive clod.

  24. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


        And when you have tens of thousands of slaves (err, employees) doing it, that sounds like a bunch of slackers. And ditch the 12 hour day idea, our employees will happily work by torch light! :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  25. Assuming his theory is correct... by Blaede · · Score: 1

    ...and the pyramids were built spirally, how do you then get rid of the spirals?

  26. That's what disgusts me about scifi by jd · · Score: 1
    There are hundreds of series that cover how aliens built the pyramids. But they're all different aliens! What, was Egypt this gigantic watering hole for trans-galactic marauders? How did they all get along, if they were all trying to enslave Earth? Timeshare?

    My theory is that there can only be one true Science Fiction series, and the rest are all bunk. However, which one is true depends on which of the alternative universes you live in. Universes involving ponies (OMG! Ponies!) are, of course, wholly exempt from alien marauders, on account of being obnoxiously cute.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  27. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's already been proven that they were not slaves. They were actually employed to do the job.

  28. Reed Punks by hhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sci Fi set in the age of steam is called Steam Punk... Set in the age of Pyramids we would have to call it Reed Punk... This wasn't the first Pyramid built; however they built them, clearly the scaled up from job to job... It wasn't like they programmed "hello world" one day and the next started to create a complete OS from scratch. My guess is his solution is a little bit too neat, and relies on technology more than brawn.

    Has there been any Peer review of this "discovery?"

    This "prof" seems more than anything to be shilling for some 3D modeling software. The software is certainly quite impressive. The scene where the cap stone is raised by turning it, so that ropes attached to it twist and thereby lift it, is quite impressive as well; the ropes are suspended from a teepee like structure of wooden poles. I'm sure it would work once you got it moving the first ½ rotation; up to that point I'm sure you really had to push very hard...

    Our good "prof" set out to find out how he could build a construction project (of the great pyramid) using only the materials of the day, based on whatever evidence there is, and of course on his modern understanding of the world.

    The scenes where wooden carry frames transport major stone blocks by the aid of counter weights seemed straight out of Indiana Jones. It's certainly possible so he claimed, but the technology seems really pushed to the limit(s).

    What happened to the idea that the stones were "wrapped" by four pieces of 90 degree "curves" so that when all tied together the stones could be rolled around like "wheels."

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
    1. Re:Reed Punks by salec · · Score: 1

      My guess is his solution is a little bit too neat, and relies on technology more than brawn.

      Have you read "Germs, Guns and Steel"? Being "primitive" doesn't mean being stupid or unsophisticated (neither today, nor most probably in the past). It just means you don't have certain means at your disposal, because they are not invented yet (as far as one knows) and you have to plan accordingly. Beyond some undetermined scale of particular building endeavor, no amount of brawn will do (due to impossibility of its addition, focusing, synchronization or logistics), so you must get technical ("neat").
    2. Re:Reed Punks by hhawk · · Score: 1

      I didn't say these guys are "primitive" but I have not read the book you mention.. There is much evidence for example that they used machines for cutting stone, and the ways they moved and erected large monuments is also very impressive. But from what I can see, the hallmark of all of these has been utter simplicity. This was the bronze age and they made fires more than 1000 degrees (f)...

      I'd much more believe they created giant cantilevered gantry cranes to move the stones than elevators for stones...

      In any event i'm waiting for the peer review..

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
    3. Re:Reed Punks by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The defining characteristic of being the "bronze age" is the ability to smelt copper and forge bronze. i.e. the Temperatures achievable in furnaces and forges. If they couldn't make thousand degree fires, it wouldn't be the bronze age.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Reed Punks by hhawk · · Score: 1

      That was my point. Thanks for saying it better..

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
  29. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    You can't actually think that it only took 20 years.

    I think 35-40 years is more accurate.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  30. Download the website's soundtrack by tsa · · Score: 1

    On the website that explains it all, http://khufu.3ds.com/introduction/, there is a link to download the website's soundtrack. I'm sorry but I can't take them seriously anymore if they pull off crap like that.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  31. Geopolymer Concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's a better explanation that this, and its been around for about ten years. (another) French theorist, Joseph Davidovitz, has shown how the Kufu pyramid could have been made of a limestone polymer: a kind of concrete. His theory has the blocks being cast in reusable molds, in situ, rather than carved or moved.

    All the mineral materials were nearby and easily mined. Given enough skilled teams, blocks could have easily been cast in place at what we now consider an astonishing rate. It also explains why the joints between the blocks are perfectly fitted. Transportation costs could have been kept low, because only small batches of material needed to be moved at a time: in relay chains rather than massive hauling projects.

    http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are -pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1

    Incidentally, It's no surprise that the French are always coming out with theories on the Pyramids. They invented Egyptology during the Napoleonic era.

    1. Re:Geopolymer Concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and here's a link to some of the fancy videos.

      http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyr amids-4-videos-download-chapter-1

      CGI vs. Francophones in Egyptian preist costumes. You be the judge!

    2. Re:Geopolymer Concrete by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      "Better" in the sense of more appealing to a modern mind? Or "better" in the sense that it uses technology we know from independent evidence they actually possessed?

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  32. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever heard of pipelining?

  33. Space Aliens by OldChemist · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Actually I think it has been pretty well established that the pyramids were built by space aliens....

  34. Alien Pyramids by xaositects · · Score: 1

    If the pyramids were built by super-intelligent aliens, wouldn't they have Linux installed?

    1. Re:Alien Pyramids by OldChemist · · Score: 1

      No, they were just normal aliens who used Windows... (Couldn't resist)

    2. Re:Alien Pyramids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both wrong.

      Linux is just descendant of the last copy of a reject alien OS (think alien-Windows). The pyramids were originally supposed to fly and take the pharoah to the afterlife (alien homeworld) where he would be resurrected (clearly alien technology - like the special tanks in Dune) and then enjoy all the comforts of life for the rest of eternity (alien sex).

      However, due to a programming error ( Year 2566 BC Bug), the pyramids did not lift off as planned. Many captured aliens speculate that the pyramids were instead set to lift of 2566 AD. Questioned as to how they differentiated between BC and AD before the birth of Christ, captured aliens report the Jesus was an lunatic alien cult leader who permanently morphed into a human. His influence upon the rest of human history made human beings forever unable to get a clue, nevermind accepting the existence of aliens.

  35. Whatever it really is, i for one... by El+Icaro · · Score: 0

    It is common knowledge for all of us educated folk who watch the SciFi channel's documentaries that it is a landing pod for Goa'uld Ha'tak motherships. I, for one, welcome our welcome our overdressed alien symbiote overlords.

  36. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the Americans stop calling him Waldo! He is Wally in the UK original. Why did you change it?

  37. Re:I Expect to see PINK next April 1st on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The slashdotter plugin for firefox will let you change the css for any page to the omg ponies theme (i currently have it set for anything linux)

  38. Re:Alien Pyramids, Alien Linux by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    If the pyramids were built by super-intelligent aliens, wouldn't they have Linux installed? They did; it's in one of the concealed chambers. Did you also fall for the hoax that Linux was made by humans?
    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  39. Pharaoh by Randwulf · · Score: 1

    So, where can I get a patch for my Pharaoh PC game? My subjects are still building external spiral ramps.

  40. It wasn't just the manager by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Based on my experience with programming projects, I'd say it must have been like this:

    - the client's manager (the pharaoh) couldn't be arsed to actually think what he needs and to specify it, and probably was also affraid to sign anything that doesn't cover all potential aspects, hypothetical future needs, buzzwords, etc, in one go. So it has to have not only a pond, but also sphinxes, obelisks, etc, just in case someone ever needs them, and sometimes because he just didn't really understand what he wants. Maybe also a case of new alpha dog having to piss on everything and mark his territory, so building a pond doesn't sound as grandious as restructuring the whole burial process in Egypt.

    - the team's marketting guy just had to sell the biggest and most expensive thing he could, even if the client doesn't actually need it. So he took the Pharaoh to a restaurant and to golf, and established himself as the guy the Pharaoh can trust, unlike those pesky IT nerds... err... embalmers who insist that they need a pyramid for it like a fish needs a bycicle. He had to cut the price and deadline a bit, though, but he's proud that he made a sale, and it's not his problem how that's going to be built with only 20 men within the promised time.

    - some other politics and power games were involved, such as between the vizier for construction and the vizier for agriculture, or between the nomarch (governor) of Saqqara and the nomarch of Thebes. Extra funds and grandious requirements are piled just to make a silly "I'm greater than you because my pet project got more funding than yours" point.

    - the builders' manager had read in some "Construction Week" ragazine for managers that pyramids are the latest cool buzzword, and everything should be built with pyramids. He doesn't really understand what those are, when they're used, and when they're not used, since those ragazines are little more than fashion magazines and never actually give you the actual information needed to make an informed choice or design. So the pond must have pyramids too, he's sure that's what makes a project successful. He's also the only guy the marketter consulted with, if any.

    - a couple of workers don't give a fuck about actually solving the problem, they just want the latest buzzwords on the resume so they can apply to an even better paid job. They heard that spiral ramps are the latest buzzword, so they have to have "has used spiral ramps" on their resume. The original spec for 3 ft tall pyramids in the corners of the pond gets ballooned into a gigantic monstrosity just so they can get that buzzword on their resume. (Of course, now there's a problem with the deadline, but that's not their problem.)

    - the architect fully cooperates with the above, or maybe is one of the above, plus he has to justify his job. His boss doesn't really understand architecture, but can be smoked with lots of buzzwords and complicated diagrams. A complicated architecture with lots of clever buzzwords, (A) makes the boss go, "whoa, this guy is so smart, I'm happy we have him to plan all this for us", i.e., establishing credentials, and (B) "whoa, these projects are so complicated, good thing we had an architect to plan it for us", i.e., making sure he gets to keep his job and be called upon for the next pond too, and (C) it lets him get paid for months, maybe years, of just painting diagrams, which is good.

    - a couple of workers are in it just for fun and playing with the biggest rocks and newest techniques, and only incidentally get to be paid for it. They'll cheerfully help inflate the spec even more, because it lets them play with big stones and logs instead of the boring old bricks for a 3ft decoration.

    - most of the builders are contractors or consultants paid by the hour. 'Nuff said.

    - at least one manager involved has realized that, according to the corporate rules, he'd get a promotion if he had just a couple more people under him. Unsurprisingly, his solution to everything is to hire more people and push for even mo

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It wasn't just the manager by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      /me salutes

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:It wasn't just the manager by david_g17 · · Score: 1

      That is probably EXACTLY how the whole deal went down. You know how I know? Because today there is no pond (the original goal), just pyramids. ;)

  41. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it's already been proven that they were not slaves. They were actually employed to do the job.

    The way you tell if you're a slave is not whether you are employed or getting paid. It's whether you're allowed to quit the job and try moving on to something else, preferably by telling the foreman that he can take this 3-ton block of stone and shove it. (Some modern-day contracts might sound like they fit this description, but they don't. There is a difference between a contractually limited penalty for quitting, and actually being prevented from quitting.)

    For an example of modern-day slavery: if a prostitute is prevented from quitting by his or her pimp, due to threats, violence, blackmail, or whatever, then the prostitute is a de facto slave, even though he or she is probably getting some share of the profits. In the US and Europe there is a problem with 'human trafficking' and illegal immigrants entering into this kind of sex slavery.

    But yeah, historians believe that the people who did the grunt work on the pyramids were probably free. The Nile flooded the farming areas for several months each year, and since TV hadn't been invented yet, there really wasn't much else to do besides hauling huge blocks of stone around. And if, during flood season, you pay the huge numbers of idle laborers to build pyramids, it keeps them out of mischief.

  42. Huge Blocks? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    I thought I recently heard that the 'huge blocks' were an early form of concrete?

    I've also been told that, in order to place these stones in the lifetime of the pharoh associated with it, they'd need to be dropped into place every 8 seconds.

    Is is safe to assume we're going to get contradictory stories about them for just a few more years? :)

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  43. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you get enough people together, you can fill the Great Lakes with urine in 5 seconds flat.


    Let's see...
    The lakes have a combined volume of about 2.28x10^16 liters, and a combined shoreline of about 1.75x10^7 meters. Assuming we can pack people in like sardines and erect a platform to allow for multiple tiers of urination, I suggest 10 people per meter. That means 1.75x10^8 people.

    That means 1.30x10^8 liters per person in five minutes!

    I would call that amazing for processes which is embarrassingly parallel.
  44. Re:Evidence of homosexuality surfaces at Slashot H by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    feces-stained used condoms If you properly douche before sex, there will be no such stains on the condom.
  45. Backstage by cbwan · · Score: 1

    The event was presented in interactive, realtime 3d, on a 24m base, 400m2 stereoscopic screen; one of the biggest, if not the biggest, virtual reality screen. Here's a small post I wrote about the VR presentation -- A VR Geek Blog

  46. Pyramidology... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    A far off alien culture sees a third-rate planet called EARTH inhabitied by primitive beings. After a few open atmosphere concerts (Earthling Aid) and a telethon (Dough for Doh!), they raise enough money to send an engineering fleet to ask the earthlings what they want built.
    Due to some translation errors, and an over active project manager's ego, a simple request for a small pond to keep water for a herd of goats gets "innovated" into a series of pyramids that can be seen from far away. The rest is history. The amazing thing is that there are really people who passionately believe the Pyramids were built by aliens. The Pyramids generate quite a lot of theories about their origins from 'Pyramidologists' around the world. Some are quite serious most of them are ridiculous to the point of being funny. The chief of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, who regularly gets swamped in these proposals coined a word for 'Pyramidologists', he calls them 'Pyramidiots'.
    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  47. Re:ATTN: Windows/Linux refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still wondering why your Sam Adams Lager is so dark compared to Bud? Take the hint, bandwagoneaours. If you can't taste the difference between toasted barley malt and rice, GTFO my beer. I've been drinking "Sammy" for years; it's my favorite domestic brewer. And nothing pisses me off more than when some punk, who just spent four years of college swilling warm "natty" from a keg, walks up to the bar and orders a "real" beer (just to show off, I'm sure), and has nothing more to say than "hey man, this is pretty good." Just because I like the company, that doesn't mean I want everybody and their dog buying their product. /sarcasm

    Seriously, I'm getting sick of these. I can only assume this person hates Macintosh, and wants to give their users a bad name.

  48. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Let's see 3,000,000 blocks / (365*20)days = 420 blocks/day.

    Are you sure about the number of blocks? Most of the interior of the pyramid is fill, not properly cut and positioned blocks.

  49. The numbers must be about the same in EU ... by ThomasCR · · Score: 1

    elsewhere even bigger. I guess.

  50. -1 ignore this tag by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    How do you tag stories for later in Slashdot?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  51. I have doubts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an archaeologist I have read a number of serious academic articles about the use of 3D reconstructions to present ideas. I won't get into all the gory details of archaeological theory here, but the short version is this:

    Images serve as extremely persuasive representations of the past, and it often the case that a reasonably compelling image which doesn't clash do badly with out own pre-conceived notions will often be accepted without being questioned very much. A good example of this is the popular image of the Neanderthals as stooped brutish creatures - An image based upon work which was discredited more than 100 years ago (I forget the exact date). CG images can be even more persuasive due to their ability to move around and show people and systems in action.

    I appreciate that this project is based upon actual engineering work, and isn't just a bunch of pretty pictures, however watching the presentation I can't help but feel that they are a little bit in love with their own images. They claim to be certain that their 'internal ramp' hypothesis is correct, and twice claim it is backed up by strong evidence, and yet they present no physical evidence whatsoever. All they have is a model which doesn't disprove their theory and a pretty 3D model. It is interesting study to be sure, but until they find physical evidence (and to be fair they have expressed an interest in looking for some) statements like 'This revolutionary idea sweeps away all the other hypotheses put forward up to now' (page 4 of the pdf) go much to far.

  52. A great theory...if crushing workers isnt an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    now who wants to test the theory out by chipping away under a 2.5 ton block until its just balanced on its corner just right to rotate it.. perfectly balanced... up the stairway...

    personally if i was a rich arrogant king Id just cover each level in salt and then wash it away. Damn that would be expensive though...

  53. Re:Simple calculation -- one block every 100 secon by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    It's whether you're allowed to quit the job and try moving on to something else, preferably by telling the foreman that he can take this 3-ton block of stone and shove it.

    There is no way to tell if that was allowed. However, it is believed that this all is focusing on religion, and not so much to see this as a tax from the government.

    YOu could tell the foreman to shove it, but the result may be that you do not have a pretty after life. Since the rule of the country also rules the after life, you may have to regret your decision for eternity, and not only for the rest of your (shortened???) lifespan.

  54. Incredibly old news by JetScootr · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid in high school in the early 1970's (yeah, I'm a jurassic geezer), this was one of the theories of how it got built. Although not given much credit by scientists, it was considered more likely than aliens and anti-gravity technology.
    Always remember, Hollywood got it last idea before the pyramids were built.

    --
    Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
  55. Re:Reed Punks - so very right by JetScootr · · Score: 2

    Here's a challenge for you. Input: copper, stone, wood tools, ropes, boats, sliders (like on a sled). No wheels, but you do get to use levers. Power supply is limited to bone and muscle - yours, or any animal you can train to do it.
    Now, spend a few thousand years figuring out clever ways to put these tools together to get things done.
    People often forget the element of time. We aren't as clever with rope and levers and ramps, because we have huge amounts of power to use or waste.
    "Technology" doesn't have to mean smaller, faster computers - it can mean using the old resources better.

    --
    Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
  56. Re:ATTN: Windows/Linux refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only assume this person hates Macintosh, and wants to give their users a bad name.

    Isn't that, um, really obvious, by now?

  57. Simulation time by Spackler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, I am going to start an actual simulation for building the Pyramids.

    All of you guys come out of your mother's basement and be my slaves.
    No wages. Bad conditions. Whips and chains. Move some heavy rocks
    for me and we will build one. Move it or die.

    This is going to be fun but I hope there are no uprisings.

    (PS: Yes, I know that Nova did it. However, mine will be full size. None of this 9 foot tall crap.)

  58. Re: 3D viewing software? ACIS, DSS, Spatial. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    I did not download their 3D viewing software. But that company's (DSS's) main business is CAD/CAM software. They bought Spatial, the devlopers of ACIS geometry kernel. They have also bought Uniras/CATIA. I have been working with their geometry kernel for more than 10 years. As a geometry modeling company they are quite decent. Dont know about their 3D viewing software through a browser idea. Without OpenGL it is impossible to render the geometry under reasonable timeframe. When I connect to my office machine from home through VPN, OpenGL rendering gets replaced by software rendering through broadband. Absolutely, horribly slow.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  59. I thought tehy recently had evidence that showed by Tran · · Score: 1

    that the blocks where poured in place - like concrete. Did that already get disproven?

  60. They got worse as they went on... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like ....

    Aliens built it, told the people how to make them.

    Either they slowly forgot how to build them well, or the tools used to build them gradually broke down.

    Thats why the first generation was the best and they got worse as time went on till they completely gave up because all their
    alien tools broke down or ran out of power source (darn nuclear batteries)

    And I bet the Egyptian govt knows this and 100% blows the religeons out of the water, and yes that means all , Islam to Christianity to Judaism, all alien based from the kabbalah http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:They got worse as they went on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. The early ones have some of the most famous mistakes... Like the "bent pyramid" with too steep sides so they had to change the angle halfway through construction when they realized it wasn't going to work. The older pyramids were stepped, with almost vertical walls for each layer; when they started making smooth pyramids like Khufu's they didn't know exactly how much shallower the angle should be and had various catastrophic failures (including collapses) before they got it right. The Great Pyramid of Khufu was built after all of this.

  61. Apparently they were not slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Last I heard, it wasn't slaves that built the pyramids, but paid laborers. They found tablets with their wages and everything. Typically, it would be farmers that during the off season would make some extra money by working at the pyramids.

    1. Re:Apparently they were not slaves by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Did they have a money (or gold, spice, salt, etc) based economy? Beer was supposed to have been invented around that time, so maybe they got paid in brewskis?

      The pyramids as a 20 year beer bash and "Hey, watch this!"
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Apparently they were not slaves by Blain · · Score: 1

      No. The Egyptian economy was not money-based, it was goods-based, with commonly used goods being units of grain, loaves of bread (of various kinds) and jugs of beer. The beer was rather, um, chunky, with a relatively low alcohol content compared to modern beers (kind of like liquid bread). Dependent workers were paid in bread and beer, definitely.

    3. Re:Apparently they were not slaves by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      There were paid laborers among the slaves (who some choose to call peasants,) but the vast bulk of the manual laborers were unpaid and were not there by choice in most pyramids, as evidenced by the detailed payment records of only a small subset of the workers in each location.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    4. Re:Apparently they were not slaves by Blain · · Score: 1

      I think you're misunderstanding the role of choice in the lives of dependent workers in ancient Egypt. Which isn't surprising -- it's a very different way of seeing the world than much of anybody capable of reading this message has ever experienced. This was a society where your lot in life was determined when you were born -- with very, very few exceptions, there was no upward mobility anywhere in society, so you didn't have people trying to claw their way to the top of the social order from the peasant class -- there was never upward mobility for peasants, ever at all. To us, that sounds oppressive and depressing, but remember that this was a civilization that traces back to the time of the creation of language, and that survived until the time that the rest of the world was capable of producing written documents to talk about them. Our notion of an egalitarian system with possibility for upward social mobility is a recent massively implemented social experiment by contrast, where we keep things going by tap-dancing very, very quickly and hoping that everything doesn't go into the crapper tomorrow, because it could.

      These workers did not rebel. Had they rebelled, they could have overwhelmed any army any king ever took into the field by simply burying the other army in their bodies. They did not do so over a period of thousands of years, which is not a sign that they hated their lives and badly wanted more.

      They did not have choice about when or if they would work on the pyramids -- it was hard enough work to organize this labor without having to recruit volunteers, especially since there would be no guarantee that the right workers would volunteer (and not volunteer). And they wouldn't have known what to do if someone had asked for volunteers -- it just wasn't part of their world. Their world was on in which the most important thing an Egyptian could to was his job, and that job was (essentially) that of his father. If anyone, from the king down to a peasant, failed to do his job well, ma'at was disturbed, and the consequences of that could be catastrophic to everyone. Egyptian girls didn't get starry eyed over the misunderstood rebel, with or without a cause -- a rebel was a threat that was addressed without hesitation. It was not unheard of for a king who was seen to have failed his duty to ma'at to have his afterlife (the most important thing in the Egyptian world) directly attacked.

      Trying to overlay modern or even old European cultural structures on ancient Egypt doesn't work. The Egyptians were not Europeans, and they didn't live in a world any European would recognize. You want a reference that discusses this stuff? Look for Barry Kemp, professor of Egyptology at Cambridge and his books with Ancient Egypt in the title. He makes these points strongly, albeit more than a little boringly as well. I'm not pulling this out of my butt.

  62. HERE IS THE LINK YOU WANT by pizpot · · Score: 1

    1. go here http://www.construire-la-grande-pyramide.fr/html/i ndexGB.htm

    2. click "The Theory"

    3. click "3. THE THEORY REVEALED"

    Then you can see in detail what he is talking about. The animations work in linux with firefox and no plugins here. It looks like a way to pile rocks into a pyramid using brain power and not much else. Wonderful. I bet it might be right. No concrete required.

    1. Re:HERE IS THE LINK YOU WANT by pizpot · · Score: 1

      The Egyptions did not sit around all day staring at their computers. They stared at rocks. Chances are if you can make a complex computer program, they could make a complex pile of rocks. Brains haven't evolved much since they got complex. ie) they were like us. No aliens required.

  63. Re:Reed Punks - so very right by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    Hey, the Egyptians had water (and water power) too.

  64. This isn't news by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    AFAIK this has been the accepted standard theory behind pyramid construction for years. I saw a thing from the History Channel which detailed exactly this theory probably two years ago, and I'm fairly sure said documentary was made during the mid 90s.

    There's some evidence that the ancients were better moving large rocks using levers than we are these days, (Stonehenge, in particular) but that in itself isn't a huge revelation. I remember the saying that as the printing press improve{s,d}, so engineering has inversely slid further and further into decline. It genuinely is true that we're not anywhere near as good at constructing buildings as we used to be...mainly because the degree of integrity imbued in the structure of buildings must, by definition, be a mirror of the degree of integrity present within the structure of the society responsible for their construction. Solid physical structures are only possible when solid social structures exist beneath/behind them.

  65. giant garage for alien spaceship by peter303 · · Score: 1

    pyramids

  66. Re:Reed Punks - so very right by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    It annoys me whenever people toss out the idea that "Aliens must've told them what to do" with the implication that ancient people were too ignorant to figure how to do things themselves. Like you said, these people lived every day with these tools and materials and were no different than us. They were always looking for ways to get more out of what they had. They had people who thought just like modern engineers or skilled craftsmen. The problem is that they usually didn't write things down or the idea stayed local and didn't spread.

    Some of the techniques they used are disarmingly simple yet clever. For instance, the Egyptians didn't have iron to help split stone blocks, so they hammered out holes then inserted dry wooden edges and watered them until they swelled and split the rock. Pretty damn smart.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Egyptians cut the stone blocks into easier to move shapes at the quarry then cut them into the final shape at the building site. Maybe they cut them into cylinders and rolled them!

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  67. How the Egyptians built the pyramids. by malv · · Score: 1

    They took a top down approach to building the pyramids. The would put a block into place flat on the ground, remove the sand below the block, then shift new supporting blocks in place, and repeat.

  68. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Waldo sounds more geeky and nerdy in US culture. Wally is more of a dumb oaf name here.

  69. NIt-picking by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Isn't it really a helical ramp? It sounds more like a conical helix than a spiral, and wikipedia agrees with me.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  70. Not Khufu's Pyramid by writerjosh · · Score: 1

    The most interesting thing about all of this, imho, is the fact that we are still trying to figure out how the pyramids were made. Here we are in the 21st century, and our top scientist/engineers can't figure out how a bunch of stone age people created one of the world's most sophisticated engineering feats ever. Why is that? This new spiral theory may indeed be correct, but they instantly dismiss one of the most compelling facts: the pyramid of Khufu was NOT built by the pharaoh Khufu. Khufu's name appears nowhere in or on the pyramid (except for one scribble of graffiti). Egyptians were obsessed with covering their works with words, names, and decorations: the Great pyramid is virtually devoid of any decoration of any kind. Why is this important? It's important because it suggests that the pyramid already existed long before the stone age building timeframe. Graham Hancock is the main proponent of this ancient theory and his book Fingerprints of the Gods is a fascinating theory about how the pyramids are much older than we expect. The inner-ramp theory people dismiss this theory off hand in their 3d video, but it's a theory that's worth exploring if you consider yourself a true Egyptologist.

  71. It's rather obvious the blocks aren't stones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're cement blocks. Cement was mixed in a form and left to solidify in place.

    The ancients knew more about alternative cement mixes than you know. These mixes have properties similar to stone: appearance, strength and molecular arrangement.

  72. xpi plugin for virtools by pbhj · · Score: 1

    If you're looking to get the XPI plugin for viewing the application/x-virtools, have a look here web browser plugin details for virtools files.


    Spoiler: it doesn't work on linux.

  73. Re:Geopolymer Concrete: Agreed by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    The first time I saw a chip from a pyramid block (yes, a real chip, illegal as hell, never should've been even picked up, much less smuggled out of Egypt and put into my hands) .. my first reaction was: "This isn't stone, this isn't limestone! This is cement! Crappy cement, yeah, but cement never the less."

    Nothing's changed my opinion since. I guess I'd have to go to the quarry onsite and personally examine the raw material there (right next to where a block had been quarried). Or have another friend get me another chip from there :-)

    I should've made an outrageous offer for that first chip, I know. Knew it then too, but the owner was so proud of himself, and so fascinated with it himself. Sigh .. lost opportunity, of the criminal kind true, but still ...

  74. Re: 3D viewing software? ACIS, DSS, Spatial. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you try it instead of spouting off all this mumbo jumbo and baseless assumptions? It uses a fairly robust and FAST 3D gaming engine called Virtools. (both OpenGL or DirectX accelerated--your choice!)

  75. Pyramids -vs- Liz Taylor etc by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    Had they built the Great Wall of Gisa instead, they would have been spared the imposition of several religions and countless incursions over the centuries - plus kept the Alexandria library in tact, and we could be building pyramids today. Then again Shakespeare wouldn't have had the subject matter for the Liz Taylor, Richard Bruton and Rex Harrison extravagnaza - Cleopatra. Hmmm. For one, foregoing that play and that mindless film for their knowledge would have been a very good deal. And countless goofy theorists would be trying to figure out how to make TV, movies and CGI instead - one supposes. RR

  76. Dude this prick stold the idea from Miyamoto by darkmasterchief · · Score: 1

    You see, Miyamoto's Mario 64 level 'Desert's Hill' pictures a pyramid that contains a spiral ramp which leads to the top of the pyramid revealing a small opening where the workers would place the top rocks of the pyramid precisely on top. Which proves my theory on the conspiracy of Video Game Giants trying to force their beliefs unto us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/N64_ Super_Mario_64_shifting_sand_land.jpg
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/N64_ Super_Mario_64_shifting_sand_land.jpg

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=7dMHvZXegVU
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZsgMWdJQyi4
    here's the actual story and image:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501ap_fran ce_pyramid_theory.html?source=mypi
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/aponline/6047 .095FRANCE-GREAT-PYRAMID.sff.jpg

  77. Re:Geopolymer Concrete: Agreed by Blain · · Score: 1

    You mean the quarry sites right next to the Sphinx that show how the blocks were cut and that match the makeup of the blocks in the pyramid? Go ahead and look at them if you want -- they're pretty cool.

    Everybody is clear that the pyramids were faced in a lighter colored and polished stone from across the river, some remnants of which can be seen at the top of (I believe) Khufu's pyramid? That was removed by later dynasties for use in other monuments. And the top stones were quarried in Upper (Southern) Egypt and barged down to Giza. These were not simple structures, even though they were not completed, and they were made from a variety of materials. I'm not persuaded that there may have been some of this concrete involved, but I would wonder why it wasn't used anyplace else at any other time over the thousands of years after the pyramids were built. It would seem to have been a good candidate for construction, perhaps as an alternative to the mud-brick that almost everything in Egypt was made from. Obviously, if it's what any significant part of the pyramids are made from, it's far more durable than mud-brick.

  78. Which Slaves? Re:History Channel by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    The Pyramids where not build by slaves but by payed workers. At least the majority of the workers where not slaves. Slaves, most of the time convicted criminals, worked in the quarries however. But also there lots of payed men worked.

    See e.g. as reference (or sue google to find more): http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/slaves.htm

    angel'o'sphere

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  79. Re:I Expect to see PINK next April 1st on Slashdot by buswolley · · Score: 1

    Must have misunderstood me. The best April 1st was The OMG it Ponies year.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.