>> Jim wrote: >> The specificity of the prediction alone sets my bullshit detector clanging. >> > >Mine too, which is why I read the book. > >To be fair, the book doesn't use this date as the prediction, it >simply points out that that's what an ancient culture had said. It >further ties that date to astronomy and modern gravity theory and says >that the date corresponds with a known alignment of planets with known >gravitational impact. > >As to the construction of the pyramids, I'd say that given there are >only 2 cranes in the world today (which take 6 months to set up) that >can lift a 200 ton block of granite 1 inch off the ground, that the >supposition that a bunch of dudes with ropes and pulleys could not >only lift the block 400 feet off the ground, but place it at half a >hair's width, is stretching it.
Just so we're starting clear: where are these figures from? Many of them seem wrong. As for the cranes - that's just wrong. Train-yard cranes routinely lift more than 200 tons. Here's a page about the largest _mobile_ crane (statically positioned cranes can lift more) with a total lift of 1200 tons: http://theclosetentrepreneur.com/big-daddy-crane Here's a floating crane (marine derrick) that lifts 600 tons 100': http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/navalmar.html#gladsky There are many more out there - just google "big cranes". But (aside from your source just plain being wrong) that's neither here nor there. Many of the ancient marvels used stones more than 200 tons in weight. Here's a nice list: http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/top50stonespage.htm We've no reason to believe that they couldn't manage such object with the tools available to them. I'm also not sure why they would have to raise it 400' - the great pyramid itself is just under 500' tall, but the Queen's Chamber is the lower of the great chambers - from the diagrams I've found it can't be more than 100' from the base (and since the pyramid was built a hill it may be less than 50' from the original ground level). As to the "half-a-hair's width" that's just plain wrong as well. The great pyramid is a stunning achievment, but these claims of advanced measurement and insane precision are exageration at best (outright lies at worst). Most blocks are placed "close enough" and filled in with scree, morter and other fill to address the gaps - the pyramid is not a precision work. When you ignore evidence to the contrary and imbue an achievement with fictional aspect (precision, scope, weight, whatever) it's easy to make it seem impossible. >I don't think that's an insult; it's a compliment. Somebody likely >had some pretty sophisticated technology that we lack and clearly >don't understand. Why would we discount that possibility? We don't discount the possibility - just the probability. The idea that the ancients needed help (most often non-human, either supernatural or extra-terrestrial) is the insult to human innovation and intelligence. The idea that there was a highly advanced human population that helped is more plausible (compared to aliens or angels at least) but in many ways just as improbable overall. The idea that a civilation with greater technological understanding than our own, could evolve, influence primitive ancient civilizations across the globe (but not actually disseminate their technology) and then dissappear without leaving ANY clearly unambigious evidence is a hard pill to swallow. It's an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. >Because we're so smart that we must know about every phenomena that >can be utilized to lift heavy stuff? > >I've had enough college engineering to know that ain't true! I'm not sure where you're going there... but the fact is that we don't to invent a highly advanced civilation to explain the pyramids. There are almost definately techniques used in ancient times that have been lost to us, but nothing that requires a semi-magical advanced society. Science is open-minded: if reasonable evidence appeared to support his claims then they would be taken seriously. But as far as I can tell he falls back too often on "since I can't explain it, it must be something fantastical" and coincedence presented as purpose. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create Web Applications With ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2. Build powerful, scalable RIAs. Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJS Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236444 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
